Thread: Questionable Constitutional Authority Statements

Originally Posted by jonny5

You might remember that when Republicans took over Congress in 2011, they instuted a rule that all proposed laws would require sponsors to list the constitutional power that allowed the law. Since then, if youve been reading this statement you would discovered that congressman either havent read the constitution or simply cite something as generic are possible. In some cases, it provides great insight into what congressman think the constitution actually allows. RSC has some great examples including the award for 'questionable statement of the week'. Some examples:



Constitutional Authority Statements | Republican Study Committee (RSC)

In looking through recent bills passed by congress, I came across the "Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012". The sponsor, Scott Tipton of Colorado cites "Article I. Section 8 the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land." which doesnt exist. Or rather is cut in half. The entire sentence is "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" which deals with regulating the military, not water reclamation. Either Tipton is an idiot, or lazy.

Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 130 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)

I'd be interested to see how Republicans justify their legislative ideas.

Originally Posted by American

We wouldn't be where we are today if it weren't for the courts packed by FDR to pass on or not judge his intrusive big govt money and power. He hurt this country more than all other presidents combined. He did it by the simple trick of the payroll tax.

Yes. It was awful how he brought the country out of the great depression, helped to create the largest military in the world, and ushered in several decades of unprecedented growth and US global supremacy. What a terrible president.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

Yes. It was awful how he brought the country out of the great depression, helped to create the largest military in the world, and ushered in several decades of unprecedented growth and US global supremacy. What a terrible president.

How, specifically, did he do all this?

Originally Posted by Harshaw

How, specifically, did he do all this?

Lots of ways. The WPA and other social policies, lobbying for our involvement with WWII, military expenditures, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

Lots of ways. The WPA and other social policies, lobbying for our involvement with WWII, military expenditures, etc, etc.

That's not particularly specific. You need to draw some cause/effect lines -- i.e., policy, mechanics of implementation, attributable results -- in order to make this rather sweeping case.

Originally Posted by Wiggen

What's idiotic is the requirement in the first place.

Not so at all. The entire power of the federal gov't is dervied from, and limitted to the constitution and its amendments, re-enpocred specifically by the 10th amendment. The concept of a limitted federal gov't, with all other powers belonging to the states or given as absolute rights directly to the people is the glue that holds this nation together. The founders realized that gov'ts thrive on power and would try to increase it at every opportunity, therefore they listed (enumerated) only specific powers at the federal level, intending that the states would then regulate most matters and that some rights of the people must remain with them and beyond the ability of either the federal or state gov'ts to take away. The bill of rights was added to help to ensure that this was well understood.