As If the Constitution Mattered

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) once again has introduced his Enumerated Powers Act, which would require Congress to explain the constitutional basis for each piece of legislation it passes. Needless to say, the idea that Congress has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution is not popular on Capitol Hill, which explains why similar bills have died in committee four times.

Comments

[David 2]

They can always use the vague "promote the general welfare" clause in Article I and in the preamble. That clause is about as vague as one of Tom Ridge's terror alerts.

[dude]

Cool idea. He should go nuts and introduce a constitutional amendment saying:

1) Congress must explain the constitutional basis for each piece of legislation it passes;

2) Each member of Congress must actually read every piece of legislation they vote for - and yes, there will be an essay test;

3) All legislation passed sunsets in 5 years and must be introduced and voted on again if so desired.

Three is probably my fav, actually.

[Sean]

If it did ever pass, they'd have some bullshit form letter to attach to everything in about 2 seconds. It would probably be an excuse for them each to go out and get another assistant and give themselves another raise, for all the extra work.

Speaking of terror alerts, I was surprised to find out yesterday that we are at code red here in the Balto/DC area. Apparently the terrorists have been filling their gas tanks and mowing their lawns in the daytime and now the air quality will kill us all if we go outside.

[Jough]

The form letter would have the "interstate commerce" box pre-checked.

There would be another pre-checked form for "compelling interest" and "national security".

[The Mountain Goat]

I'd like to see this type of legislation pass. My entire constitution fits in a shirt pocket, proving the Founders were not overly verbose. If the commerce clause means what the FDR supreme Court says it means, why did the Founders bother to write any of Article 1, Section 8?

[Anonymous]

I would like to nominate Rep. Shadegg for the position of God.

[Anonymous]

the whole constitution is a horse and buggy antique anyway. we need more liberal judges to reform it!

[Warren]

I agree that this is too easily bypassed. I like dude's no.3 above and I'll add my own proposal in place of no. 2

Every peace of legislation must be read out loud in its entirety, prior to being voted on for final passage.

If it doesn't actually stop em, at least it will slow them down.

[Croesus]

The writers of the Constitution wrote it so as to be overly vague in many places.

[James Merritt]

I would set the mandatory sunset period at two years (the length of one congress) for all money issues, and six years (the length of one senate term) for all other issues. We have to make sure that everyone who votes for a bill has to survive at least one election before getting to extend that bill's life.

I would also require that, not only must constitutional relevance be shown for the entire bill and individually for all of its provisions (articles and amendments), but also that all provisions in a bill must bear directly on the key (constitutionally authorized) subject and purpose of the bill, and that such relevance must also be explained clearly in each provision itself or elsewhere in the bill.

I would additionally specify that "ignorance of the law you passed is no excuse." That is to say, if congress reps or senators tried to claim that they didn't understand a bill for which they voted, that would be grounds for immediate dismissal and replacement via special election in their district or state, as appropriate. If the common people have to know and abide by the law, then the people who pass the law had better know it too, and have debated the law well enough to consider even the less obvious consequences of its provisions. THAT'S THEIR JOB.

Finally, I would disallow most, if not all, of the immunity that government grants itself and its officials from having to abide by the law. I am told that this is often done to prevent "constitutional conflicts," but from what I have seen of such situations, I think the legitimate cases are rare and relatively extreme in nature. I think that congress might be a bit more cautious about passing laws, if it could not excuse its members or officials of other government agencies from having to comply.

[Kevin Carson]

Sean and Jough are probably right. I'd like to see an explanatory amendment defining exactly what the existing enumerated powers mean: for example, the power to "regulate commerce among the several States" would be strictly defined as the power to regulate only the physical movement of goods across state borders, and NOT production or commerce within a single state.

And the power to "lay taxes..., to promote the common Defence and general Welfare" would be defined to exclude a general power of appropriation outside the specified legislative powers.

And the "necessary and proper" clause would be interpreted to require a reasonable degree of necessity for carrying out an enumerated power, not just vague conducivity.

[Sparky]

Representative Hayworth (R-AZ) intorduced a piece of legislation recently that would require Congress to make many of the decisions it currently delegates to agencies. Some interesting stuff coming out of the Great State of Arizona. The state's conservatives have always had a more libertarian streak (for instance, we seem to always have women governors, not a very "conservative" trend, and we seem to be at the forefront on Medicinal Marijuana laws). Hayworth and Shadegg are usually Class-A clowns, but I think they've both put foreward pretty positive legislation here.

[digamma]

I think mandatory sunset periods would backfire on libertarians. Every time a program came up for review, the reps who favored it would accuse the others of trying to "take it away". It'd lead to a lot more bloat, IMHO.

[Mark S.]

Dude's provisions need a very important number 4:

4) Any politician; local, state, or federal, who create and/or votes for legislation that is found unconstitional on any level, will spend life in a federal prison. Also, all of the offender's personal assets will be seized, liquidated, and given as tax-free compensation to any and all victims of the offending law.

If that isn't enough, there's always public execution with no appeal. It would do my heart good to see Rick Santorum or Ted Kennedy swinging from a gallows or lined up in front of a firing squad.

[Mr. Smith]

?Every peace of legislation must be read out loud in its entirety, prior to being voted on for final passage.?

(Shhh! Be quiet, Dude! Don?t give ?em any ideas! They might discover a new form of filibustering.)

[Anonymous]

You mean, as in James Merritt?s piece above?

[ybother]

I thought we had a Constitutional Republic here.
Turns out we?ve got a ?Capitol Hill Popularity Contest.?

[James Merritt]

I saw you use my name, poster-with-no-name. But I didn't see a point. Was there one?

[Plutarck]

I believe the appropriate quote here is as follows: "America is at that awkward stage. It is too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

It is an interesting question: how do you fix a system which is broken, can only be apparently reformed by those within it, yet is broken enough so as to break those that enter it and keep the unbroken out?

The panacea of all fixes, education, is itself even now a part of the same broken system, and generally equally as broken.

Such pathology intrigues me, and baffles me thoroughly as well.

[jacob]

^of which sen. whoever he is is a welcome example.

i read an interesting artcile the other day, saying that neocons were basically democrats who liked government but wanted more war, in the mold of scoop jackson.

[xyz]

If I understand correctly, the neocons are (more or less) Democrats who where purged from that party in the 70s and 80s by the hippies and nuclear freeze types. This is why they show little interest in traditional conservative themes like smaller government, etc.

[jacob]

yeah, ne cons are like the foriegn policy of the republicans and the domestic policy of the democrats.

worst of both worlds, y'know.

[Matthew :)]

OK, I'll bite. What would the Constitutional basis be for the Enumerated Powers Act?

[The Tortured Artist]

I'd like to take the idea of "all provisions in a bill must bear directly on the key (constitutionally authorized) subject and purpose of the bill" just a bit further:

No riders. Period. They should be voting on each law individually. We get things like the Anti-RAVE act because it gets attached (at the last minute) to some "feed the differently-abled orphans of color" bill that no politician would ever vote against lest s/he be ridiculed in the next election cycle as voting to "harm the children."

One law per vote. Then we can accurately see who's voting for what.

As long as I'm dreaming, I'd also like to see a "Truth in Titling" regulation: no more "Patriot Acts" or "Tax Simplification Acts." I don't care if the title isn't a catchy soundbite, it should be at least marginally accurate (and hopefully neutral), e.g. "An act to increase the power and authority of federal police and investigative agencies."

I'd also like to see some sort of federal report or flag so that it's easier to determine when laws are under consideration that favorably impact industries that spend a lot on campaigns of lobbyists (e.g. DMCA). But hey, like I said, I'm dreaming.

[wideawake]

No wonder you feel tortured, artist!

And yes, it's time to get up. (Didn't you hear the alarm?) You WERE dreaming.

What, you expect all that honesty from LAWYERS!?

Seriously now. How do you suppose we got into this mess in the first place?

[Plutarck]

Morris:

"Reason magazine is "education," Pluto. So are the thousands of other rational web sites around the world. And so (hopefully) are the books on your shelves, and in the many libraries that abound."

You know, you're right. I fell into the trap I've often pointed out to others, in that there is a very big difference in "education" and "school", in the same way that there is a big difference in "sex" and "brothel".

Education has never been better (what with the internet and the seemingly ever increasing access to books, among other things); I'm not sure if school - at least government ones - has ever been worse in modern times.

Indeed, no matter how bad the government, life itself as it can be commonly experienced seems to be in pretty good shape.

[Morris]

"The panacea of all fixes, education, is itself even now a part of the same broken system, and generally equally as broken."

Reason magazine is "education," Pluto. So are the thousands of other rational web sites around the world. And so (hopefully) are the books on your shelves, and in the many libraries that abound.

"Education" is not the insipid, isolated institution you make it out to be.

Even by your own words, YOU, too, educate.

As a wise man once said, "We are all teachers."

Now go out there and have some fun, will you.

[jacob]

"Some interesting stuff coming out of the Great State of Arizona. The state's conservatives have always had a more libertarian streak ."

i got two words, bud: barry goldwater.

[not]

Even better, let's say that no new legislation can passed until all laws currently on the books can be explained to be constitutional. Those that can't must be tossed.

Feel the relief of the legislative enema.

[xyz]

They don't make em like Barry G anymore. Sad but the fundies and big government neocons own the Republican party now. . . with a few exceptions.

[a teacher]

"Indeed, no matter how bad the government, life itself as it can be commonly experienced seems to be in pretty good shape."

Let's do that again, Pluto -- paraphrased:

No matter how bad the government, my life seems to be in pretty good shape -- because I make it so.

And by doing THAT, I help make life for others a bit better as well -- in spite of government.

[press sec]

But you HAVE a press secretary, Pluto! Don't you know? You always had.

[Plutarck]

Wow, I guess this is what it is like to have a press secretary - no matter how much you mangled something, they do a little re-arranging and make it sound like you actually knew what you were talking about.

Wish I had that all the time...

[Amit]

Matthew writes: OK, I'll bite. What would the Constitutional basis be for the Enumerated Powers Act?

Answer: Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings".

This is the same way they make rules that have requirments on how to pass the budget, etc.

These rules clearly do affect how legisilation is made. (Although of course, each house can amend its rules at any time).

[Stern Caroline]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL:
DATE: 01/25/2004 05:05:53
Good people strengthen themselves ceaselessly.

[Shana Childes]

Inspirational comments as I have learnt to expect. A quick plug on small double beds. Please continue with your amazing labors.