Each
of them takes an oath to defend the Constitution, but many House lawmakers
either don't understand the founding document or don't take its precepts
seriously, according to an analysis by The Washington Times that studied the
constitutional backing that representatives submitted for each of the more than
3,000 bills they introduced in 2011.
Under
rules that the new Republican majority put into place, each House member
introducing a bill must cite specific parts of the Constitution that they think
grant Congress the authority to take the action they are proposing.
The
first year's worth of action was less than inspiring for adherents of the
founding document: Many lawmakers ignored the rule, while others sliced and
diced the clauses to justify what they were trying to do. One thumbed his nose
at the exercise altogether, saying it's up to the courts, not Congress, to
determine what is constitutional.
Most
striking of all is how little the statements mattered in the debates on the
bills. They were mentioned just a handful of times on the floor, and didn't
foster the constitutional conversation that Republican lawmakers said they
wanted to spark.
"A
lot of people were wanting it to be a mechanism for actually forcing something
to happen. And that didn't happen. And I think it didn't happen because, by its
very nature, it's not the right mechanism for doing it," said Matthew
Spalding, vice president of American studies at the Heritage Foundation. He
helped push for the rule two years ago and said it can be a good tool to teach
about the Constitution, but it's not the way to enforce limits."This thing
does not bear that burden," he said.
Republicans
took control of the House in 2011 with vows to restore fealty to the
Constitution after two years of fights over the limits of congressional and
executive power. Constitutional authority statements were just one part of that
effort.
The
House also kicked off the last Congress by hosting a reading of the full
Constitution on the chamber floor — the first time that had been done. On
Tuesday, the 113th Congress will start with another reading.
"One
of the resounding themes I have heard from my constituents is that Congress
should adhere to the Constitution and the finite list of powers it grants to
the federal government," said new House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who has organized the reading both times.
Constitutional
cherry-picking - The Washington Times studied 3,764 bills introduced in the first
year and found some patterns in the authority statements: The most commonly
cited authority was Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which establishes Congress'
power to tax and spend "for the common defense and general welfare."
Close behind, however, was the commerce clause — Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
— which has come under fire by many conservatives for being stretched well
beyond the Founding Founders' intent.
Lawmakers
cited 70 authorities, including 56 bills under the 10th Amendment, which
reserves powers to the states rather than to Congress, and 12 under the Second
Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.
"The
thing that jumped out is how many parts of the Constitution members of Congress
seem to think grant them legislative authority," said Doug Kendall,
founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "I wouldn't have
thought the 10th Amendment, which is about legislating, or the First Amendment,
which says 'Congress shall make no law,' would be fertile ground for
legislative authority."
Like
Mr. Spalding, he said the reality has fallen short of its drafters'
hopes."It is a good thing to require Congress to articulate why the laws
it passes are constitutional. I think it was an overdue idea," he said.
"That said, if all you are required to do to meet the requirement is list
'Article I, Section 8,' then I'm not sure there is any utility in doing
so."
Even
Mr. Goodlatte has used that shortcut, citing Article I, Section 8 in general
terms for a handful of his bills. That is the section that gives the broadest
outline of congressional powers on such matters as taxing, regulating commerce,
controlling immigration, coining money and overseeing the military.Mr.
Goodlatte's spokeswoman didn't return messages seeking comment.
Constitutional
shortcuts - The Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus in the House,
has monitored the statements and found some surprises.
One
bill that was signed into law cited only the Constitution's preamble. Five
others cited clauses that don't exist or were not cited under the correct
clause.
"It
should go without saying that members of Congress and the executive branch must
know and understand their constitutional limits and requirements established by
our Founding Fathers, but unfortunately, that has not always been the
case," said Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican and chairman of the
RSC.
The
rules call for lawmakers to cite the powers "as specifically as
practicable." Despite that, 108 bills were introduced citing all of
Article I in its entirety. That is the article that establishes Congress.
Goofs, shortcuts and misreadings abounded.
Rep.
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado Democrat, cited "the foreign commerce clause"
— which doesn't exist — and placed it in a portion that deals with federal debt
authority.
Rep.
Scott R. Tipton, Colorado Republican, sponsored a bill to promote hydropower on
federal lands, citing the Constitution's clause granting Congress the power
"to make rules for the government and regulation of the land." But
the full clause gives Congress power "to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces" — clearly a reference to the
military, not to federal property. Several others made the same mistake.
Constitutional
creativity - Some lawmakers got creative in their justifications. Rep. Carolyn B.
Maloney, New York Democrat, sponsored a bill to force companies to disclose
publicly whether any of their supply-chain businesses use forced labor, slavery
or child labor. Her constitutional justification: "Amendment 13 — Slavery
Abolished."
Rep.
Don Young, Alaska Republican, cited Article I, Section II as the authority for
a bill that allows Indians to collect sea gull eggs in Glacier Bay National
Park. Article I, Section II, has little to do with sea gulls. It sets out the
requirements for being elected to the U.S. House. None of those bills became
law.
Fealty
to the practice appears to have waned over time: Rep. Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Republican, in his early citations cited specific authorities and even included
discussions of court cases that he said helped clarify the extent of Congress'
authority to act. But by the end of the first year, he was submitting standard
one-sentence justifications, just as most of his colleagues were doing.
Constitutional
'authority' - Rep. Rick Larsen, Washington Democrat, signaled that he didn't
think Congress had any business talking about constitutionality and argued that
it was something better left to the Supreme Court.
"Members
of Congress, having been elected and taken the oath of office, are given the
authority to introduce legislation, and only the Supreme Court, as established
by the Constitution and precedent, can determine the constitutionality of this
authority," he said in his authority statements. He goofed in each of
them, placing the Supreme Court in Article II of the Constitution — which
actually sets up the executive branch instead. Article III sets up the court. Spokesman
Bryan Thomas declined to elaborate on Mr. Larsen's approach.
The
statements have fostered only a few real debates on the House floor, and there
it has been chiefly Democrats, not Republicans, who have used the
constitutional requirement to undercut Republican-sponsored bills.
In
one debate on the Protect Life Act, which would have expanded prohibitions on
federal funding of abortions, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings challenged the statement
submitted by bill sponsor Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican. That
statement said the bill was acting to "overturn an unconstitutional mandate,"
but Mr. Hastings, Florida Democrat, said that wasn't specific enough."I
would also like to call into question how it's possible for us to consider this
bill on the House floor when its sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to
provide a statement citing Congress' constitutional authority to enact
it," he demanded on the House floor. His complaint went nowhere.
Source: Washington Times, January 14, 2013 By Stephen Dinan
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/14/defenders-of-constitution-dont-always-use-it-for-l/print/#ixzz2I2roWrR2 Follow
us: @washtimes on Twitter
Comments:
The Federal Government has screwed up everything it has
usurped from the States. If we ever get
our government back to do the Will of the People within the confines of the
Constitution, we could eventually cut the cost of the federal government in
half by sending unconstitutional activities back to the States. Unless we do,
we will become a third-world province of a Communist Dictatorship.
The Constitution sets us up to be a Free Market economy with
limited government. If we don’t
eliminate federal responsibility for education and health care, we will never
reduce the cost or improve the outcomes.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment