From WorldNetDaily
By Henry Lamb
Posted: November 14, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Speculation about Roland Burris' double-digit IQ followed him to the U.S. Senate, where he opened his mouth and removed all doubt. When a reporter asked him to identify the specific constitutional language that authorized the federal government to mandate individual health insurance, he stumbled a bit, and then said it is that part that says "health, welfare and defense of the country." The word "health" is not in the Constitution.
Nancy Pelosi didn't even try to answer when she was asked the same question. Her reply was "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Sen. Patrick Leahy's answer was not much better. He said, "We have plenty of authority. Why would you say we have no authority?"
Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that Article I, Section 8 limits the power of Congress to very specific, enumerated powers.
Burris' staff assistant said Burris was referring to the Constitution's preamble, which says the Constitution was established to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."
Fortunately, the founders were not content to assume that "the general welfare" would consist of whatever Roland Burris, or any other legislator, may think is appropriate. That's precisely why the founders didn't stop at the preamble. They were very deliberate in their selection of words that created the U.S. government.
Consider the context out of which the government arose: a brand new nation born on bloody battlefields that separated a national infant from a tyrannical giant. The infant nation consisting of 13 independent parts lacked unity, coordination and strength. Some of the founders wanted the new government to be much like the government of England, strong and in control of the 13 colonies. Others feared such a government would soon become as tyrannical and unjust as the government of the king.
From these two opposing views, men of honor knelt in common prayer for guidance and crafted a compromise that was truly inspired. To make the laws, there would be two houses of Congress, one elected by the people every two years, the other elected by the state legislatures to serve staggered six-year terms. To be absolutely sure that this Congress would not become as tyrannical as King George, the founders spelled out exactly what the Congress was empowered to do. These powers are set forth in Article I, Section 8. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Henry Lamb
Posted: October 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. John Shadegg has been trying to get a bill enacted for 15 years that would simply require legislators to cite the constitutional authority for any legislation that is proposed. His bill is called the Enumerated Powers Act (HR450). It now has 52 co-sponsors, but there is very little chance that it will ever get to the floor for a vote.
Why? Because the Democrats in Congress will not allow it.
This bill would not be necessary if the Democrats would simply follow their own rules. House Rule XIII (3)(d)(1) requires:
"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."
That's right. The rules of procedure in the House of Representatives already require that every bill or resolution cite the constitutional authority for the proposed legislation. This rule is routinely ignored.
Why? Because Democrats control the Rules Committee and the entire House of Representatives, and they routinely "waive" or "suspend" this rule.
Some people remember when Nancy Pelosi stood on her pedestal and proclaimed: "This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history" (November 16, 2006). Ignoring a House rule is a minor offense, compared to the corruption that Ms. Pelosi readily accepts when it affects her Democratic colleagues.
How quickly did she and her colleagues invoke House rules to condemn Rep. Joe Wilson when he blurted out "you lie" during President Obama's sales pitch to Congress? But when Democrat Alan Grayson uses visual aids to claim that the Republican health-care plan calls on sick people to "Die Quickly," there's nothing at all offensive to Pelosi and her colleagues about the gross lie Grayson speaks. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
If a congressman is not willing to support the Constitution that he swore an oath to defend, he or she has no business in Washington. Every member of the House who refuses to co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 450) – or provide an acceptable, written reason why not – should be identified and made a target for replacement.
read more |
digg story
Arizona Representative John Shadegg has introduced the "Enumerated Powers Act" (H.R. 450), which requires that: "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act." Every congressman should support this bill! And if not.... then we'll know.
By Henry Lamb
Every Congressman swears an oath to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To a casual observer, these words could be interpreted to mean that laws enacted by Congress should be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.
To the majority of Congress, these words mean something else, or have no meaning at all, because much of the legislation produced in Washington has no relationship at all with the Constitution.
If we are a nation founded upon the U.S. Constitution, then our laws should be constrained by the Constitution. If we no longer wish to be constrained by our Constitution, we should abandon it and fly by the seat of our congressional pants.
Let's have a constitutional showdown.
Arizona Representative John Shadegg has introduced the "Enumerated Powers Act" (H.R. 450), which requires that:
"Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."
What a great idea! Every congressman who has sworn to "… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" should eagerly endorse this concept – or be exposed as a blatant hypocrite. [Continue reading]
digg story
Posts
