Posts: 2081
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 10:32 AM         

---

I agree.

Every Bill Should State Its Constitutional Authority, Republican Congressman Says
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

A Republican congressman says all bills introduced in Congress should include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which a law is being enacted.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) says his Enumerated Powers Act will force Congress to re-examine the role of the national government and curb its "ever-expanding reach."

"For too long, the federal government has operated without Constitutional restraint, creating ineffective and costly programs and massive deficits year after year," Shadegg writes on AmericaSpeakingOut, a Republican Web site that seeks ideas from the American people.

Shadegg says the trend of Congress overstepping its role has gotten "alarmingly worse" in the past 18 months.

As CNSNews.com has reported, some lawmakers apparently do not consider the Constitution in writing legislation.

In the debate over health care, for example, CNSNews.com asked various members of Congress -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- "Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to force individuals buy health insurance?"

Pelosi's response -- "Are you serious? Are you serious?" -- was one of many nonplussed answers CNSNews.com received.

Shadegg says he has introduced his Enumerated Powers Act in every Congress since the 104th. And now, as American families tighten their belts, he says it's time for Congress to do the same. "As Members of Congress, we need to make sure that we are only spending when authorized to do so," Shadegg said.

Republicans say Democrats are trampling on the Constitution with measures that reach far beyond the limits of government laid out by the Founding Fathers -- and it's time to reassert the relevance of the Constitution in every debate that takes place in Congress.

They are urging Americans to "debate and vote on" Shadegg's idea at AmericaSpeakingOut.com.

The official summary of H.R. 450, introduced on Jan. 1, 2009, reads as follows:

"Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress."

The bill has not advanced beyond the Judiciary subcommittee to which it was assigned.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70900

IP: Logged

Posts: 4709
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 12:12 PM         

---

great idea. good luck to him. probably needs to find a way of bringing some others in on his side if it's ever going to be so much as considered. but hey, the lobbyists probably have more money than he does. it's a pity that those with money to burn (on lobbying especially) aren't interested in clear, constitutional bills. but let's not mess with "private" money or how it is spent, even when it undermines the constitution and the legislative process EVERY FIRKIN DAY.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2081
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 02:52 PM         

---

Hmmm, most of that corporate campaign money went to O'Bomber. The lobbyists who handed it off stuffed it in O'Bomber's pockets.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4709
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 03:32 PM         

---

????????? here, jwhop, i'll give you some more straws to clutch at so you don't have to overexert yourself. that so flies in the face of the facts. during the gulf scenario the pundits were saying obama wasn't doing anything because big oil gave so much to his campaign - like about 2% of what was given to mccain's campaign. fits like a glove doesn't it...not.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2081
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 04:41 PM         

---

Wrong katatonic.

That's not what so called pundits were saying about O'Bomber at all.

This is what they were saying about O'Bomber in regard to the oil well blowout.

O'Bomber was asleep at the switch.

O'Bomber didn't react to the blowout for almost 60 days.

O'Bomber impeded the cleanup of the oil.

O'Bomber refused to permit foreign ships to help clean up the mess as a sop to his union buds who helped get him elected.

That's what so called pundits were saying about O'Bomber...and in every instance, those so called pundits were right.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4709
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 05:38 PM         

---

bullshite. the fact that he wasn't on the beach sucking up oil with a straw does not constitute doing nothing. and the place looks pretty clean now doesn't it? like i said at the time, it was looking pretty bad for him. sister sarah was screaming "he should this that and the other" but SHE was not in a position to review the information he was seeing. now it looks like getting that $20 billion was a pretty good response.

of course we don't know if the dispersants are the reason the oil has disappeared, or what they will do to the gulf. i'm not saying he did a brilliant job there, but neither do i know if anyone could have done better. least of all the backseat driver who left alaska behind for greener pastures and 5 star hotels.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2081
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 05:53 PM         

---

Yes, yes, yes...according to O'Bomber he was on the stick from day one. How pathetic.

O'Bomber was no where to be seen...or heard, hadn't even talked to the head of BP. But, by that time he had already refused the help volunteered by foreign vessels to soak up the oil on the surface.

Yes, yes, yes, O'Bomber was right on top of the situation...from day one.

As a result of O'Bomber's incompetence lots of oil reached shore that should not have.

As a result of O'Bomber's incompetence, measures which could have been taken by the states to keep the oil off their beaches were denied to the states.

You must be the only one in America who believes O'Bomber showed his competence in dealing with this well blowout and the oil in the waters of the Gulf.

Oh wait...just you and O'Bomber.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3516
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 05:58 PM         

---

Constitutional authority is something decided in court, not Congress.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4709
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 06:04 PM         

---

"like i said at the time, it was looking pretty bad for him."

but i also said he was privy to information neither you nor i - nor palin - know anything about. and none of your assumptions are facts, they are - assumptions.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2081
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 06:51 PM         

---

"Constitutional authority is something decided in court, not Congress."...acoustic

Constitutional authority is decided by the language found in the Constitution.

Courts may try to overrule the Constitution but that just means Judges who do that are corrupt and should be impeached.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3516
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 12, 2010 06:58 PM         

---

Courts interpret the Constitution.

IP: Logged