“constitutionality clause.” I hope it passes

[Miss D]

Enzi works to keep Congress in check
Senator co-sponsors bill to help Congress legislate within constitutional powers


July 7, 2009


WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., is backing a bill designed to ensure that Congress legislates only within the bounds of its powers granted by the highest law in the land.

Enzi, along with 19 senators including Senator John Barrasso, R-Wyo., co-sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (S. 1319), which would require that every bill introduced in Congress include a “constitutionality clause.” A constitutionality clause is a statement describing the section of the Constitution that grants Congress the right to make that specific law.

“Congress must remember that it does not have all-encompassing, free-reigning governing powers. Our founding fathers granted Congress limited powers within the Constitution, and we should not stray outside those powers,” Enzi said.

“Oftentimes in the Senate, legislation comes to the floor that clearly oversteps the bounds of the federal government. So far this year the government has taken over banks, insurance companies and most recently the automobile industry. It has to stop. These bills should have never made it that far,” said Enzi. “The Enumerated Powers Act will help to limit the over-legislating that Congress is currently so famous for by requiring that every bill contains a statement of constitutionality.”

The enumerated powers of Congress are outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. If signed into law, this legislation would make any bill without a constitutionality clause subject to a point of order in either chamber of Congress. A point of order can be raised by any senator or representative and is used to point out when a rule of the legislative body has been violated. If the presiding officer agrees with the point of order, the bill cannot be considered until a constitutionality clause is added.

The Enumerated Powers Act was introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on June 22 and has been assigned to the Senate Rules Committee for consideration. A companion measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

Can you immagine how hard Obama will fight this Bill!

[talisman]

It almost sounds like common sense. We'll see how quick it gets shot down.

[mikeb]

It'll never happen. There is no way that this congress is gonna limit what they can do, when they want to do it.

[Miss D]

It'll never happen. There is no way that this congress is gonna limit what they can do, when they want to do it.

I know but may be if enough people emailed their Senator it might pass Well I can hope

[forever_frost]

I'd vote for that

[cannonball996]

I can see a lot of democrats on board with this bill, any sort of social conservative legislation would be blocked. gay marriage, abortion rights are social issues that do not have constitutional cause and there fore could not be applied to congressional legislation.

[JP135]

I know but may be if enough people emailed their Senator...

Yeah, just like the bailout! Ralph Hall (Republican congressman from East Texas) says elected representatives received letters/emails at a ration of 150 to 1 against the bailout. What did they do?

[forever_frost]

Yep, I was there for that speech

[slow06]

I can see a lot of democrats on board with this bill, any sort of social conservative legislation would be blocked. gay marriage, abortion rights are social issues that do not have constitutional cause and there fore could not be applied to congressional legislation.

States would then have the power, as it should be IMO.

I am totally against abortion, but I don't think any government should have control over it unless they define when a baby/fetus is considered alive. Until they define "alive" it is a personal choice. One that makes me want to throw up when people choose abortion, but theirs nonetheless.

[Sean88gt]

Yeah, just like the bailout! Ralph Hall (Republican congressman from East Texas) says elected representatives received letters/emails at a ration of 150 to 1 against the bailout. What did they do?

Most of them are convinced they are secure. The only thing they are convinced of more is that they know what is better for us than we do.

[cannonball996]

States would then have the power, as it should be IMO.

I am totally against abortion, but I don't think any government should have control over it unless they define when a baby/fetus is considered alive. Until they define "alive" it is a personal choice. One that makes me want to throw up when people choose abortion, but theirs nonetheless.

thats how it should be and suppose to be. but there is one huge problem, there is a clause in the constitution that says that states have recognize and accept contract arrangements made in other states. this was put in mainly to deal with bank documents and notes, and legal documents, but it also applies to drivers licenses, (ie: if you have a Texas drivers license you can still drive in California because its valid) obviously it plays an important role, however that constitutional clause also applies to marriage licenses, if your married in Connecticut and move to Texas your still married and has to be recognized, even if that other state issued a license to members of the same sex.

[mustangguy289]

It will get shot down. Don't even waste your time hoping.

[slow06]

thats how it should be and suppose to be. but there is one huge problem, there is a clause in the constitution that says that states have recognize and accept contract arrangements made in other states. this was put in mainly to deal with bank documents and notes, and legal documents, but it also applies to drivers licenses, (ie: if you have a Texas drivers license you can still drive in California because its valid) obviously it plays an important role, however that constitutional clause also applies to marriage licenses, if your married in Connecticut and move to Texas your still married and has to be recognized, even if that other state issued a license to members of the same sex.

I have a copy of the constitution sitting here, do you know where that clause is?

I have never heard of that, but if it is true that rule does not apply to everything now (Concealed Carry/Open Carry of firearms) so why would it cause problems in the future?

And the marriage thing, I guess I am ok with that. Again, personally I am against Gay marriage, but in this case I think the government has a right to allow or disallow it because marriage is, throwing out the symbolic and emotional meaning, forming a "partnership" and receiving a tax deduction. When forming any corporation or getting any tax deduction there are always rules. If all you want are the symbolic and emotional meaning just tell people you are married. Now if Texas changed the rules to allow gay marriage I would disagree, but once again it is their choice.

[cannonball996]

I have a copy of the constitution sitting here, do you know where that clause is?

I have never heard of that, but if it is true that rule does not apply to everything now (Concealed Carry/Open Carry of firearms) so why would it cause problems in the future?

Article IV,
the concealed firearm laws have been challenged under this article, but off the top of my head I cant think of a case that has been heard by the supreme court with this argument in mind.

[46Tbird]

I have a copy of the constitution sitting here, do you know where that clause is?Article 4, Section 1.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec1.html

[slow06]

Article IV,
the concealed firearm laws have been challenged under this article, but off the top of my head I cant think of a case that has been heard by the supreme court with this argument in mind.

Article 4, Section 1.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec1.html

I looked it up, thanks. Interesting.

[Cartman]

that is the best move the Rep party has made since clinton was in office. Too bad it will never see the light of day. but come election time it will speak volumes to the people, if the Rep party brings it up as a key point.