Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Libertygal
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.
I am confused by this snippet. The Judicial branch does in fact determine what is and what is not constitutional. Each member of Congress is provided
with "guide" from the Judicial branch outlining standing case law as it relates to the constitution.
Absent the Justice branch deliberating and determining what is constitutional via the people arguing thier case via lower and higher courts plus
d you go about determining what is constitutional? Your opinion?
You are correct, but reading the entire article helps:
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.
Perhaps I should have included the concurrent paragraph.
Basically, they are required, upon presenting a new law, to show how they feel it is constitutional. This is while it is in committe, exactly where
these types of discussions shiuld take place. You want a proposed law to pass Judicial Committe scrutiny before attempting to pass it. Many bills are
proposed, sent to committe, then sent back to be redrawn for all sorts of reasons, and we see it on occasion, that when bills are put to the vote,
they are argued as unconstitutional. Better to return it now, than to fight it in court once it has been made an act.
The article is written by a someone in Judicial review, remarking about, what appears to be the fresham Republicans, though I doubt it is only about
freshmen or Republicans, just congress in general.
It's a great read, though. I really had no idea the constitution had never been read on the floor.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no