Wowzer. Is this ever stupid.

[cali]

House GOP considers constitutional test for all new legislation
By Molly K. Hooper - 12/16/10 03:40 PM ET

House GOP transition team leaders will recommend a change to the lower chamber's rules that would require all members to prove that their legislation is constitutional.

GOP members who are leading the party's transition to the majority unveiled a series of changes they will implement in the 112th Congress on Thursday, with many mirroring promises made in the GOP's "Pledge to America."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the head of the House Rules Working Group, on Thursday said the GOP transition team will recommend the adoption of a rule requiring lawmakers to provide constitutional authority for every bill.

“The Constitution is not that long. The operating manual for a Toyota Camry is more than five times longer, so it should not be that difficult,” Bishop said.

GOP leaders intended to send out a memo later Thursday providing guidance to members of the 112th Congress on how to deal with the new requirement, and suggest “resources they can go to to assist,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the transition team.

snip

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/134111-house-gop-mulls-constitutional-test-for-all-bills

[Angry Dragon]

1. You mean he is going to make them read the Constitution

That sounds un-constitutional

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Mentally deranged..every single repuke...in Congress and out..

I am beginning to think that being a repuke should be classified as a form of mental illness.

[rurallib]

10. One comes up with a hare brained idea and the rest go along

fearing that if they disagree they will be primaried and fileted.
What a group of gutless bastards.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Almost as gutless as most of the dems these days...

[unlawflcombatnt]

45. LOL

Yeah, especially after today's capitulation on Obama's tax cut sell-out to the rich.

[glinda]

3. Gee. I wonder which interpretation of the Constitution they will take.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :nuke:

[JuniperLea]

16. The St. Ronnie version?

I'm sure it sits right next to the King James version of the Bible on every GOP shelf.

[gateley]

4. Hmmm. I think they should appoint Sharron Angle. She knows what the Founding Faithers

REALLY meant.

[elleng]

5. Yes, stupid. So, what's new? Delay Delay Delay

There IS NO PROOF of constitutionality w/o Supremes say-so.

[wryter2000]

20. True, but

For the most part, it'll be delaying their own stuff. They're in charge.

:crazy:

[elleng]

23. Right, I know that, but

trying to show how 'constitutional' they are, so willing to fail to accomplish anything significant/useful, just to show us!

[aquart]

37. They don't intend to do anything. They CAN'T do anything.

They gave all the money away to their rich supporters.

[Toucano]

6. The Constitution is not that long..."

So go ahead and ignore all those libraries full of case law.

The House of Representatives is not the arbitrator of what is and is not constitutional. That's in the Constitution, I believe.

[grilled onions]

7. Think We Might Benefit More If They Read The Manual

:crazy: At least then they can run a vehicle(hopefully) better then they can this country.

[cali]

15. .....

:rofl:

[rurallib]

8. Constitutional as interpretted by whom?

[zeemike]

9. It just gives them another tool to control legislation.

If they don't like the amendment they can tie it up with this rule.

[DCKit]

11. Finding the Founding Fathers UnAmerican in 3....2....1 nt

[sharp_stick]

12. It had to be some asshole from Utah

didn't it? I mean shit, I know some really nice people in Utah and the scenery is spectacular but I'm tempted to abandon that entire place to the magic underwear polygamous assholes that run it if they will just let us put a nice big wall around them.

[notesdev]

13. As long as it applies to their own crap

then I'm perfectly fine with this. It's quite novel actually, a suggestion in DC that actually following the Constitution might be something to try.

[treestar]

14. "it's not long?"

So he has no idea of case law? Constitutional scholarship?

He has no idea of how difficult it might be.

[JuniperLea]

18. Wha? There's no Reader's Digest version of all that?

There's no way The Great Weepy Orange Boner can throw all that to the floor! Oh no he can't! Harrumph!

[stopbush]

24. He has no idea that case law is just as much a part of the Constitution

as the Bill of Rights.

Same goes with any treaties we've signed.

Just another R asshole.

[onethatcares]

49. they've also never read a Camry manual

sheesh.

[valerief]

17. There goes the gun owners' rights. Unless they stick only to muskets. nt

[unblock]

21. in theory i like this idea, but yes, in practice, it's pointlessly stupid.

in theory, it's a good idea to require lawmakers to point to the relevant sections of the constitution to show a basis for legitimacy of the proposed legislation to avoid wasting the chamber's time deliberating about something that won't hold up in court.

moreover, some of the constitutional restrictions on legislation have the form of "congress shall make no law...." it doesn't say congress can make whatever law it pleases and then the courts shall knock the unconstitutional ones down. the judicial branch's check on congressional power is still necessary, but much better for congress to not pass unconstitutional laws in the first place.

that said, in practice, this is a joke. the authors of any bill will always insist their bills are constitutional, and will always be able to concoct an argument for it, even if it's flagrantly unconstitutional. it's necessarily the role of a bill's OPPONENTS in congress to challenge its constitutionality, and that is already done in practice.

[petronius]

22. Hmmm, since the USSC is supposed to be the final arbiter on what is or is

not constitutional, and since this new rule appears to attempt to arrogate that power to Congress instead, I wonder if the rule itself is constitutional... :)

[Ozymanithrax]

25. Many right wingers consider social security, unemployment, and other programs...

unconstitutional. These programs are based on the General Welfare clause, but because they are not mentioned explicitly have long been called unconstitutional by conservative idiots. In fact, they consider any government program not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as unconstitutional. That will make writing a budget both easy and controversial.

[rucky]

27. and Federal income tax, for that matter.

without which would make writing a budget impossible.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. No, it would just required going back to property based tax systems.

as existed before.

[treestar]

36. And there are many instances where the programs in fact were

challenged and the SCOTUS already held they were constitutional. I can just imagine what a shock that might be to Bishop.

[Occulus]

46. That's called "strict constructionism" and is as useful to a living Constitution

as teats on a bull.

Of course, conservative idiots all over the country do not consider the Constitution a "living document", for some strange reason.

[rucky]

26. I think that rule may be unconstitutional.

How do you prove it + isn't that the SCOTUS job?

[mstinamotorcity]

28. F--K the Constitution!!!!!!!!

Wasn't written for me.

[Puzzler]

29. Er... I thought ALL new legislation was supposed to be constitutional...

... whether or not it actually is, is another matter.

[leveymg]

31. Who's going to judge if a Bill passes "constitutional" muster? These guys?

[Sonoman]

34. Is that the 5th Circuit panel?

Because, silly me, I have always thought Constitutionality was decided in Court.

But that's just me, I suppose.

Sonoman

[leveymg]

38. The Good Ol' Boys in Richmond have 'em beat. You don't want to end up in the 4th.

[Sonoman]

39. Damn, that picture is almost enough...

to make me stop wearing hats.

Sonoman

[leveymg]

40. Real men wear hats while they're working.

[Occulus]

47. That is one GIANT-ass leaf.

Do tobacco leaves really get that big?

[leveymg]

48. Do farmers grow in the ground?

Was the Account Manager at the Sterling Cooper Ad Agency aware of the irony and innuendo in that ad?



Stinky bastards, the lot of them.

[hootinholler]

32. I predict that the 112th congress

Will have the most laws passed subsequently stricken down as being unconstitutional.

-Hoot

[leveymg]

33. . . . and ungrammatical.

[jillan]

35. What about all those constitutional amendments that they want to change.

Like the 14th - the part about being born in the US makes you a US citizen. I don't think that will fit into their little plan.

[COLGATE4]

41. Yep. All that silliness about having to study your ass off for at

least three years in Law School plus then specializing in Constititional Law is just for those 'damned educated fools'
- any real, red-blooded 'Merkun knows that “The Constitution is not that long. The operating manual for a Toyota Camry is more than five times longer, so it should not be that difficult,”. We're in the hands of some real fucking geniuses now. I'm for nominating Sarah Palin to the Supreme Court - that would be frosting on the cake.

[HopeHoops]

42. The US Constitution isn't that long, but it is a solid piece of work. The Camry isn't long either,

but it is a piece of shit.

No comparison.

[alfredo]

43. So they want to displace the Supreme Court.

[eridani]

44. I dunno about that. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war

I wouldn't mind going back to that.