Reading the Constitution in The House of Representatives

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:45 pm

So, where do you all come down on this?

Originally, I was neutral on this, until I heard some of the reasons the Republicans want to do this.

I think my opinion at this point, is that it's congress' job to write legislation and then up the the Judicial branch of government to determine whether it's constitutional or not.

I mean, what else is there for the Supreme Court to do?

JK

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:47 pm

I think Congress should still write legislation within the parameters of the document that got them hired.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:53 pm

Risky wrote:I think Congress should still write legislation within the parameters of the document that got them hired.

True. But if they don't know the constitution by the time they get to Congress, do you really think reading it out-loud on the floor is going to educate them on it???

Their reasons for doing this are totally bogus. In fact, one of the main proponents is some old fart that proposed and got passed some legislation banning pornography, which the Supreme Court then ruled was totally unconstitutional by a 7-2 decision...lead by Scalia, probably the MOST conservative judge in history...and this guy is still on his soap box about Judicial activism!

JK

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:10 pm

I don't think it's ever too late to attempt to educate any American on the Constitution.

Now, whether or not they are capable of learning is another subject.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:16 pm

what's wrong with reading the Constitution, JK?

I don't know much about the controversy you refer to, so, am hoping you will clarify.

and, why shouldn't congress, at least "try" to write law, that is constitutional?
With all bills, and "crap" that comes out of those chambers, if the SCOTUS had to review every one........it'd never happen.

Why the hell, shouldn't a representative, or senator, know the constitution, with some familiarity?

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:35 pm

ygmir wrote:what's wrong with reading the Constitution, JK?

I don't know much about the controversy you refer to, so, am hoping you will clarify.

and, why shouldn't congress, at least "try" to write law, that is constitutional?
With all bills, and "crap" that comes out of those chambers, if the SCOTUS had to review every one........it'd never happen.

Why the hell, shouldn't a representative, or senator, know the constitution, with some familiarity?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading the constitution. I have a constitution app on my phone and on my iPad.

I'm saying there is something wrong with the "reasons" they are making such a big issue of doing so. Additionally, IMHO, if they have to be schooled in the constitution AFTER being elected, they shouldn't have ran for high office in the first place. Which is why it is laughable to have candidates like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin, etc. even be CONSIDERED as contenders by the voting public.

This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has to do with what the American people are willing to accept in a candidate that they are willing to put in charge of governing them and their country.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:41 pm

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:what's wrong with reading the Constitution, JK?

I don't know much about the controversy you refer to, so, am hoping you will clarify.

and, why shouldn't congress, at least "try" to write law, that is constitutional?
With all bills, and "crap" that comes out of those chambers, if the SCOTUS had to review every one........it'd never happen.

Why the hell, shouldn't a representative, or senator, know the constitution, with some familiarity?
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading the constitution. I have a constitution app on my phone and on my iPad.

I'm saying there is something wrong with the "reasons" they are making such a big issue of doing so. Additionally, IMHO, if they have to be schooled in the constitution AFTER being elected, they shouldn't have ran for high office in the first place. Which is why it is laughable to have candidates like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin, etc. even be CONSIDERED as contenders by the voting public.

This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has to do with what the American people are willing to accept in a candidate that they are willing to put in charge of governing them and their country.

JK

yeah agreed.........I think there are plenty of "doofus'es" on both sides, elected.
Is Charley Wrangle any better schooled than Christine O'Donnell?
how about Maxine Waters?
just sayin, there's dummies on both sides, if my examples are invalid.

so, what are the "reasons" for wanting to read the const. to which you refer?

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:54 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:what's wrong with reading the Constitution, JK?

I don't know much about the controversy you refer to, so, am hoping you will clarify.

and, why shouldn't congress, at least "try" to write law, that is constitutional?
With all bills, and "crap" that comes out of those chambers, if the SCOTUS had to review every one........it'd never happen.

Why the hell, shouldn't a representative, or senator, know the constitution, with some familiarity?
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading the constitution. I have a constitution app on my phone and on my iPad.

I'm saying there is something wrong with the "reasons" they are making such a big issue of doing so. Additionally, IMHO, if they have to be schooled in the constitution AFTER being elected, they shouldn't have ran for high office in the first place. Which is why it is laughable to have candidates like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin, etc. even be CONSIDERED as contenders by the voting public.

This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has to do with what the American people are willing to accept in a candidate that they are willing to put in charge of governing them and their country.

JK
yeah agreed.........I think there are plenty of "doofus'es" on both sides, elected.
Is Charley Wrangle any better schooled than Christine O'Donnell?
how about Maxine Waters?
just sayin, there's dummies on both sides, if my examples are invalid.

so, what are the "reasons" for wanting to read the const. to which you refer?

In one word: Grandstanding.

Do you really think that hearing someone read the Constitution aloud one time, even if you try and pay attention, will have any educational value? It's hard enough to actually understand when you read it.

Plus, those that are pushing this, have their own 'sections' and 'amendments' of the constitution that they actually believe are constitutional. Now how's that for convoluted thinking?

I've had my second glass of wine, so I'm not in the mood for cites...or probably not even making too much sense. I might revisit this in the morning if I remember.

Though by then it will probably have lost its relevance.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:00 pm

oh jeeze......heaven forbid some senator or congressman "grandstand".........hahaa, they're all turds. IMHO.

Yeah, I could see reading it not actually instructing anyone.
It would be interesting, though, if it is read, then, some asshat politiciaon says, they didn't know it was, or was not in "There", to ask if they'd paid attention, at all?

hahaha
it's a circus, to me.

I don't quite understand, the following:

Plus, those that are pushing this, have their own 'sections' and 'amendments' of the constitution that they actually believe are constitutional. Now how's that for convoluted thinking?

drink on, JK pal........you, half in the bag, are more interesting, entertaining, and informative (if not predictably left of center, ahaha), than many here, at the top of their game.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:11 pm

I think people don't understand how the Constitution works or how our form of government is really supposed to work. Many people believe that our government is hierarchical. It isn't. Federal and state governments have completely different jobs and the state governments are, according to the Constitution, the more powerful of the two in the sense of making laws.

The federal government has ONLY the powers EXPLICITLY given to it in the Constitution. If it is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have that power. The state government has ALL powers except those explicitly disallowed by the Constitition.

I think it needs to be read to people more often.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:36 pm

yeah, that's always sort of confused me.......
the 4 and 10th ammendment, IIRC.

how do states, end up being run, by the feds?
I understand, it's the "power of the purse string".
I had thought, out nation was set up more as 13 "independant" states, almost "nations" as such, with a very limited fed. to take care of very limited issues, that could only he dealt with at that level.

wha happen?

Post by **Eric** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:50 pm

ygmir wrote:yeah, that's always sort of confused me.......
the 4 and 10th ammendment, IIRC.

how do states, end up being run, by the feds?

Article 5 wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The States themselves voted by 2/3 majority to cede those powers in the amendments to the Federal Government.

Simple as that.

The fact that certain members of Congress don't like it doesn't change the fact that it was done by the mechanisms set in the original 7 Articles of the Constitution. Anyone who claims to be a Strict Constitutionalist but who says certain Amendments don't apply is a hypocrite.

Even Prohibition had to be repealed by Amendment, approved by 2/3rds of the States; Congress by itself couldn't do a thing to change it.

Post by **Eric** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:21 pm

Oh, to emphasize the States role in amending the Constitution, look no further than the

27th Amendment!

202 years from proposal to ratification.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:20 am

Print it! Staple it! and Read it!

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/hi ... const.html

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:01 am

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a STATE from instituting government health care or health insurance. That would be completely constitutional. That is just a modern example of what I see as federal overreach when it comes to the Constitution. A state is perfectly free to do that on their own without any federal intervention.

The entire point of that mechanism was that the less populated states were afraid the more populated states (Mass, Penn, and Va.) would shove their wishes down their throats. The idea is that states can do as they wish, and people can vote with their feet.

We have 50 states. Each state is blessed with their own mix of resources and burdened with their own set of problems. We should have 50 different approaches to each unique set of problems with the resources each has at hand. The entire POINT of the Constitution was to prevent a central government from dictating to each state how they should handle their unique set of challenges.

Too much central control can be a disaster as we have just witnessed with Washington meddling in the mortgage industry. One bad set of central decisions can march the whole country over the cliff. Let each state make their own decisions. If you live in California, pay attention to California's problems and what California does and pay less attention to what Kansas or Oklahoma or Arizona does. Stop trying to tell other people what to do. Mind your own business.

What we need to do is focus more on local politics. Make the world you want to make ... in your own state. Don't go shoving your values down someone else's throat. America has areas with liberal values and areas with conservative values, both should be free to express their values in their laws. If you want to be left alone, leave other people alone.

We need to get back to the notion that we can do what we want to do .... at the state level.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:14 am

blah blah blah!

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/hi ... amend.html

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:03 am

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

Post by **Eric** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:08 am

geekster wrote:We have 50 states. Each state is blessed with their own mix of resources and burdened with their own set of problems. We should have 50 different approaches to each unique set of problems with the resources each has at hand. The entire POINT of the Constitution was to prevent a central government from dictating to each state how they should handle their unique set of challenges.

So, each state should just get back $1 for every dollar its citizens pay in taxes? 'Cause that means a whole lot of "red" states are going to lose tons of federal funding, and the blue states will get a fair share. I know it would be a lot easier for California to solve our problems if we were getting back more than the $0.78 that we're getting for every dollar. I'm sure Alaska doesn't need that $1.84 for every dollar they pay with all their resources.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

We're in the 21st century, not the 18th. Our Constitution has remained remarkably flexible and enabled our country to grow & remain strong. If you seriously think that we could survive as 50 separate states with only a federal gloss you haven't spent enough time looking at the real world. Parts of this country are one step removed from being third world in terms of education, health & economy (parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama all come to mind off the top of my head.) Using your logic the Federal Government has no obligation to help these people, its up to the states. States that are also broke. Oh well, guess they're screwed unless they can solve it on their own.

The world has a growing number of failed states, I don't really understand why the "conservatives" are so determined to add us to the list.

Sorry, as I've said in multiple posts, we're either one country or we're not a country at all.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:36 am

The reason health care should be handled at a national level is simple economics of scale-- a single payer plan at the national scale makes for the most savings. (A fact which has been discovered by people who started out opposing nationalizing health care until they did the calculations.) Actually, all insurance works better with more paying in.

The U.S. Constitution (do we still have one?) is one of the shortest, if not THE shortest, in existence, and part of the reason it works so well is that it can be reinterpreted to fit whatever the current reality is. When someone complains it should be interpreted in the manner the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted, they almost always have conveniently forgotten that the Founding Fathers meant for it to be reinterpreted over time. (I also challenge them to produce a living Founding Father to explain exactly what they meant.)

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:16 am

BAS wrote:The reason health care should be handled at a national level is simple economics of scale-- a single payer plan at the national scale makes for the most savings. (A fact which has been discovered by people who started out opposing nationalizing health care until they did the calculations.) Actually, all insurance works better with more paying in.

The U.S. Constitution (do we still have one?) is one of the shortest, if not THE shortest, in existence, and part of the reason it works so well is that it can be reinterpreted to fit whatever the current reality is. When someone complains it should be interpreted in the manner the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted, they almost always have conveniently forgotten that the Founding Fathers meant for it to be reinterpreted over time. (I also challenge them to produce a living Founding Father to explain exactly what they meant.)

Ygmir, this is pretty much what I meant by congressmen having agendas when touting and flaunting the constitution. As much as they tout it, they don't seem to really respect it for what it is. Take the 14th amendment...let's ignore or repeal that one to protect us from those illegals that come here just to have babies. That is just one example of many that are prevalent among the tea party and the far right.

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:21 am

geekster wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a STATE from instituting government health care or health insurance.

Sort of ironic with all their financial problems, but California is a staunch supporter of health care and are vowing to be the earliest adopters of all of the provisions of the current law even if it is repealed by congress.

JK

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:51 am

and we all know how much California has their shit together...

Post by **Eric** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:47 am

goathead wrote:and we all know how much California has their shit together...

Yeah. Kinda sad. I mean we've fallen from being the 7th largest economy in the world all the way down to be the 8th largest. In the world.

Do we have problems? Yep. Can we pull out of them, just like we have with every other recession? Yep.

Even with my endless unemployment I still know this is the state to be in for the long term.

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:23 pm

yeah it is kind of sad.

just think where it would be it it didn't have the massive debt.

Post by **Eric** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:40 pm

goathead wrote:yeah it is kind of sad.

just think where it would be it it didn't have the massive debt.

That, my friend, applies to the whole country. California isn't even the worst, and if states start defaulting this whole mess is only going to sink further.

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:06 pm

Eric wrote:
goathead wrote:yeah it is kind of sad.

just think where it would be it it didn't have the massive debt.
That, my friend, applies to the whole country. California isn't even the worst, and if states start defaulting this whole mess is only going to sink further.

kind of a house of cards in a wind storm

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:47 pm

goathead wrote:
Eric wrote:
goathead wrote:yeah it is kind of sad.

just think where it would be it it didn't have the massive debt.
That, my friend, applies to the whole country. California isn't even the worst, and if states start defaulting this whole mess is only going to sink further.
kind of a house of cards in a wind storm

When California Sneezes, the rest of the country catches a cold...or something like that. I hate to brag, but we do have our shit together...somewhat...compared to other states.

lucky420 · Post by **lucky420** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:30 pm

I agree with jk...horse and pony show

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:35 pm

lucky420 wrote:I agree with jk...horse and pony show

Did I say that???!!!

JK

lucky420 · Post by **lucky420** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:42 pm

well allow me some editorial room...

grandstanding=horse and pony show

=rodeo