Tomorrow marks the first day of the new Republican lead House of Representatives and history will be made. For the first time in our history the entire United States Constitution will be read on the House floor. In addition to being read, a new rule will be put into place that will require all bills contain a statement by the author of the bill that cites the constitutional authority "to enact the proposed law". Now, the rule does sound a bit redundant since the oath all members of Congress take is to uphold the Constitution thus it would make sense that all bills written would already follow this unwritten rule.
Tea Party members of Congress are the catalyst behind the rule change and the reading of the Constitution tomorrow. I wonder how many of those elected to Congress have themselves read the Constitution. Kevin Gutzman, history professor at Western Connecticut State University, sees the reading as "entirely cosmetic" and believes, "This is the way the establishment handles grassroots movements. They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant. And then once they've humored them and those people go away, it's right back to business as usual. It looks like this will be business as usual – except for the half-hour or however long it takes to read the Constitution out loud" (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/112756494.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ). Professor Gutzman may be correct because we have already seen the Republicans, during the lame duck session, cave on UE benefit extensions and START Treaty.
Akhil Reed Amar suggested, "Heck, I'll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?" Mr. Amar is a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School. I agree with Amar that perhaps the Constitution needs to be read more often and possibly even debated a bit to make all aware. Has Congress and the rest of the Federal Government moved itself away from the Constitution? Or is this merely "cosmetic" with no real grit? I will be doing my civic duty when I am sworn in at Hamburg City Council member tomorrow and will be attending a two-day crash course on municipal governance later in the month.
Other than grandstanding, what is the value add from this? 95% of congress are lawyers, they all have read the constitution as part of law school.
ReplyDeleteThis is purely politics.
Truman
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder if they really have read and studied the Constitution, especially in light of the recent health care mandate. Plus, the recent news that Obama is going to use regulatory fiat to enact parts of health care reform that he couldn't get passed into laws.
While I have not looked into but where does regulatory agencies come into play via the Constitution?
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteJust becuase you disagree with the health care law doesn't make it unconstitutional. We need to wait for the SCOTUS to rule on it to know that answer. 3 judges have upheld it, 1 has overturned. The possibility is there that it will be overturned since the majority of the SCOTUS are pseudo-originalists. However, Justice Kennedy could swing more liberal on this and make it a 5:4 vote in favor.
And as part of law school ALL lawyers are required to at least have a rudimentary understanding of the constitution as it is part of the foundation of our judicial system.
And I assume you are referencing the "death panels" that were removed from the law. Are yo aware that this law was passed under Bush by a republican congress and only now do they oppose it?
I have to say, this level of hypocrisy is why our political system is so screwed up. And the fact that so many americans buy into the political dogma (via MSNBC or Fox pundits) without educating themselves is a symptom of a bigger problem. People prefer to be spoon fed lies today rather than educating themselves to the truth by doing research, reading books, etc.
As to the constitution and regulation, the constitution has very limited enumeration of regulatory powers as far as I understand it. The commerce clause is one of the most clear. The reasoning for the commerce clause is clear, the issues the early colonies had with trade wars between the "states" was an issue that needed remedy. By giving the federal government power over interstate commerce, it effectively terminated this activity.
I'm a libertarian and I find it ironic how many people think that doing away with all regulation would magically create a free market with perfect balance and equilibrium. The problem is the USA is not a capitalist society, we are a crony capitalist society.
Even I admit that limited, common sense regulation is required to make sure that businesses don't abuse their positions of power.
Truman - You didn't say it was a waste, or harmful, so please don't think I'm putting those words in your mouth. But I'd like to turn it around and ask that. Instead of us looking at this and saying "it doesn't add any value" (which I do disagree with, by the way), tell me if you think it is harmful. Even if it just political showboating, how is it harmful?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris, and the gentleman who challenged them to read it weekly. More often than once a year would be great, I think. But once a year is a good start. I am speaking from my own experience, so may not apply to all - but I know if I've mastered something, and then lay it down, I will lose it eventually. Granted, they are in the constitution regularly - but reading it in it's entirety aloud? I bet most don't do that often on their own. I could very well be wrong here, but I'll bet most don't.
So - do you see it as harmful? If not - why do we criticize it?
Ted
Of course it's not harmful. But it's theatrics, nothing more. It's smoke and mirrors, if you will. It is intended to give the impression that the GOP is somehow the party of the constitution while the Democrats are the party of the anti-constitution when that's not the case at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have a 2 differing and equally valid interpretations of that document. To claim that one is valid and one is not or that one is MORE right than the other is absurd. That's like saying that one american is MORE patriotic than another because one flies the flag and another does not.
False symbols should not be seen as proof of anything or validated in any way.
If they wanted to show they were they party people should vote for, they should pass the deficit commissions report IN TOTAL and put the democrats on the defensive about deficit reduction. That would show us all they are serious.
This isn't serious. This is merely a show for the tea party who are too unsophisticated politically to understand the difference between simple theatrics and meaningful leadership.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is theatrics but the benefit is that it's getting a lot of play. Media outlets and the pundits are hyping it more than anyone else. The Left is down playing it while the Right is stoking the fires.
The note from today's reading will be how many and which Democrats didn't stay on the House floor to listen to it. Let's face it, many ( on both sides of the aisle) have admitted in the past that they didn't read the entire Health Care Bill and the Stimulus package. I agree with Ted that we should have this read more often.
The more it is read, the more the media will report and perhaps finally schools will get serious about Civics. Not only that perhaps people who have not read will read it to see what all the buzz is about. Theatrics yes yet a benefit can come out of it.
It would be good theater too if Republicans enacted the entire Deficit Commissions recommendations. The political gain will be large.