How else to interpret this comment?
In the next Congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
The rule is a mostly symbolic overture to the Tea Party, for which an animating cause was that much of the congressional agenda over the last two years, including the president’s health care law and the bailouts for Wall Street, has been unconstitutional.
But some House Democrats are steamed at the charge their agenda has gone beyond Congress’s constitutional authorities.
“It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party,” said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank about the rule. “Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court. Some of them interpret the constitution very differently, but no, that will not be a problem.”
Emphasis added. Jennifer Rubin (who alerted me to Barney’s petty petulance) quips, Congressmen “all do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but I guess the Democrats consider this piffle.”
Poor Barney, that unhappy Congressman from Massachusetts, can’t be troubled to consider the constitutional authority allowing legislation before he votes on it, leaving it to courts to sort it out later. Guess that’s above the mean-spirited Democrat’s pay grade.
And I thought he was so smart! Guess he’s just not smart enough to determine the constitutionality of legislation he votes on.
“Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court.”
————-
Slavery?
Prohibition?
DADT?
.
So years of unconstitutional regulations and the gazillions of dollars in expense for the private sector to adhere to them along with the gazillions for the bureaucrats that write and administer them… Add in the extra gazillions in legal fees for the years that it takes unconstitutional legislation to wind its way through the court system…
Why on earth would we want to consider constitutionality ahead of time?
If you cannot determine the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, barney, then you are morally bound to vote against it as a part of your oath to uphold the Constitution.
gastorgrab:
Slavery was constitutional — it was even specifically protected by the Constitution.
Prohibition was constitutional — the Constitution was amended to include it.
And like it or not, DADT was constitutional — even though I am quite glad to see it repealed.
LOL 🙂 Good, they deserve it.
Our nation has survived for as long as it has because our Constitution, written in plain yet elegant english is revered and understood by the citizens. If we who are “ordinary citizens” can understand it and want to protect it, how difficult is it to expect our elected policy-makers to also respect and to be guided by the Constitution?
“And like it or not, DADT was constitutional — even though I am quite glad to see it repealed.”
RWR, if DADT was constitutional why did it need to be repealed? If the job of our elected officials is to uphold the Constitution then doesn’t that mean they should’ve upheld DADT?
“Slavery was constitutional”
———–
Could it be again, if we repealed the 13th amendment?
My point was that the courts didn’t decide any of this issues, even though all three were central parts of Liberal rhetoric. Liberals considered all these things WRONG, but the courts couldn’t fix them.
Is ObamaCare constitutional? Could it have been passed if congress were required to state constitutional precedent prior to it’s passage, and not establish a brand new prescient through it’s enacting?
Laws become self-justifying. They create their own authority. If we ignore the fact that we live in a Republic, and that individual rights must be respected, then any group can ‘vote-away’ the rights of a smaller group, or an individual.
It has always been the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the constitution is respected. They all take an oath to that effect before they are seated Senators and Representatives; “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
I think they fully intended to use the constitution to undermine the constitution. ObamaCare was passed through brute force, and will undermine our freedom for years to come, even if it provides no health care for anyone.
.
He’s always said he’ll retire at 72, which is 2 years from now. Let’s hope he sticks with the plan.
“if DADT was constitutional why did it need to be repealed? ”
Because some laws are bad, even if they are constitutional. Just because a law can be deemed constitutional doesn’t mean it needs to become law. What you are implying is that there doesn’t need to be a constitution at all. It the constitutional it WILL be made into law.
That’s like saying tax laws shouldn’t be repealed, or changed, because the previous tax law was constitutional. Certainly our tax system is constitutional and is even provided for in the main body of the constitution and extended in one of the amendments. However, many, many taxes and tax laws have detrimental affect on our economy and businesses, so should be repealed or changed.
Regards,
Ken
I spoke wrong in my comment. The third sentence should read:
What you are implying is that there doesn’t need to be a congress at all. In other words, what you are saying is that if something is constitutional, then there doesn’t need to be a congress to enact a law. It’s simply constitutional and the federal government can do it.
How many times have you guys pointed at the Dems and whined about the politics of personal destruction. Get a mirror, honey. Clearly, you conservative gays do get dry-cleaned.
Oh wow, people are still debating DADT. I hope you guys are paying attention to the implementation of the repeal, because from what I’ve seen in the Marine Corps Times, the military leadership does not seem to be paying much attention to the safety of gay troops at all. If it gets implemented badly, things could get very ugly.
People on this website spent years pushing for the repeal of DADT. I think you owe it to gay servicemembers to take the time to monitor how the law actually gets repealed and what life is going to be like for gay people who will not be able to leave the military if conditions deteriorate. Obviously the military is concerned with pressure from gay rights groups, so now is the time to press for specific demands such as changes to the chaplain counseling program, EO modifications, recruiting changes, or changes to the admin separation code. Don’t get hung up on same-sex-partner benefits because then all the focus will be on officers and career NCOs rather than the junior personnel, which are the people who used DADT most often.
I just think you need to move past debate mode and get into dialogue and watchdog mode, to make sure that gay servicemembers aren’t sacrificed and isolated without help in what could become a very hostile environment, quite easily.
About constitutionality, it seems that a lot of you don’t realize that servicemembers are subject to the UCMJ and don’t have the same rights that would be protected by the Constitution. So Prohibition and slavery are not equivalent to DADT. We can be detained on little evidence, our homes can be searched for “health and welfare” inspections at any time, we sleep in public areas with the doors open (what about the quartering act?), and we can be punished for speech and/or refusing to answer basic questions. Our rights to a trial by jury are not guaranteed.
I mention this so you don’t labor under the mistaken impression that the regulations that replace DADT will somehow grant constitutional rights of free speech and free association to gay servicemembers. Nor will the 14th Amendment equal protection clause likely apply to gay servicemembers. The Constitution doesn’t fully apply when you are in service.
8: Constitutional precedent? You mean, only pass a law if it’s been passed before?
Are these the same Republicans who were trying to pass legislation that would be exempt judicial / constitutional review when they were last the majority in the house and the senate?
Are these the same Republicans who were trying to pass legislation that would be exempt judicial / constitutional review when they were last the majority in the house and the senate?
United States Constitution, Article III, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2, Paragraph 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In short, Congress has perfect Constitutional right to do exactly that, given its power to create, make exceptions, and set regulations for the Federal judiciary.
When one reads how uninformed and ignorant Kevin is on topics, one understands why gays and lesbians like himself are desperate for laws that would require hiring quotas and ban firing gays and lesbians based on job performance.