Teaching the Constitution
..to legislators.
My favorite representative, John Shadegg, has proposed legislation that will require Congress to "specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws..."
It's sad that it has come to this, but I'd like to see someone specify the source of authority under the Constitution for the enactment of a federal bill funding a museum in Arkansas.
My favorite representative, John Shadegg, has proposed legislation that will require Congress to "specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws..."
It's sad that it has come to this, but I'd like to see someone specify the source of authority under the Constitution for the enactment of a federal bill funding a museum in Arkansas.
8 Comments:
I believe almost all bills already specify the source of authority under which they are enacted. Even so, I'm not sure what good such a rule would do; lawmakers would find some justification (usually commerce clause) for whatever law they felt like bringing up. In bills enacted under interstate commerce jurisdiction, often a provision of the bill explicitly argues why Congress believes the bill affects interstate commerce. Although often this argument is dubious; see my comment under "Against the Bill of Rights."
By Tim McGuire, At 9:50 AM EDT
Shadegg doesn't think the bill will have any immediate affect on the law making process. He's just trying to put his big spending peers in a contortionist act that he can expose to the voters.
By Ben Polidore, At 12:16 PM EDT
But don't you think that if the public likes the law, they'll accept however spurious of a constitutional justification for passing it? We'd get reactions like: "I don't like this law, therefore Congress must not have constitutional authority to pass it" and vice versa. I think almost everyone would support policy they agreed with, even if it was enacted under iffy jurisdiction.
Not to mention that the vast majority of the public doesn't have the background necessary to analyze what Congress can and can't do, except in the most eggregious cases.
By Tim McGuire, At 12:59 PM EDT
I think that the public is generally wary of spending, and fairly decent at understanding logic, even if they don't understan the Constitution.
I think most people would be able to grasp the weak logic used to justify a lot of spending if it was simply presented to thim, which today it is not.
By Ben Polidore, At 2:00 PM EDT
OK, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether the public will overlook a lame justification for a popular bill.
The ban on handguns in school zones was overturned by the Supreme Court on commerce clause grounds. It was the right decision from a legal standpoint, but do you think the public cared? I think a vast majority of people would support that law regardless of the constitutional technicalities.
By Tim McGuire, At 9:55 AM EDT
And that's further evidence of shift in power from states to the U.S. government. You'd think that people would look to their cities first to ban guns from their local schools. That people look to a power thousands of miles away to answer relatively trivial questions is inefficient at best and scary at worst.
By Ben Polidore, At 10:27 AM EDT
Perhaps. Kind of a tangent, but OK; still, don't you think it's a little redundant to have to pass 15,000 local laws when 1 federal law would do?
By Tim McGuire, At 1:52 PM EDT
Haha. On those grounds, don't you think it would be easier if we just had a king?
I know, I know.. but there is a balance, and I'd like to strike on the side of caution when it comes to federal power.
By Ben Polidore, At 6:47 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home