You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Constitutional authority’ tag.

Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”

And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class, Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5 start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center.

GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.

And the memo warned that any bill that is filed without the requisite “constitutional authority statement” will not be accepted by the House clerk and will be returned to the sponsor. Such a statement, House Republicans added in a Friday statement, “also demonstrates to the American people that we in Congress understand that we have an obligation under our founding document to stay within the role established therein for the legislative branch.”
Read more:

Under What Constitutional Authority??!!??

 By scottielo on Sep. 23, 2009, 9:04 PM | Flag as offensive Watching the August Town hall meetings, the Tea Party Movement and the general civic awareness that has been displayed by previously ambivalent voting blocks is a very positive sign for the future of our republic. Generally, the moderate/right leaning blocks of American politics have not been overtly active in protesting government policy. With the recent expansion of federal powers, both under Republican and Democratic administrations, everyday citizens have taken to the streets and make their voices heard at congressional, and senatorial public hearings. This group has been basically taken for granted in the past; and, understandably so. The recent awakening of “Middle America” has created a renewed interest in the interpretation of the exact words of Our founding fathers. People are beginning to demand under what Constitutional authority the federal government is basing its recent actions. The Constitution of The United States of America allows for federal government to supersede the rights of the states only in matters regarding the defense of the nation, as an arbitrator in conflicts between one or more states and to “regulate” interstate commerce. All other powers are to be decided on a state or local level, except where further Constitutional amendments take precedent, i.e. voting right enforcement. National defense and inter-state conflict are fairly self explanatory and need not be discussed further here. Regulating interstate commerce, on the other hand, has become a catch-all phrase for the Federal government to intrude in any aspect of the republic that it desires. The simplest definition of regulate means “to make regular”. To make something regular does not, even in the most liberal translation, mean to interfere, control, or compete with. However, since the progressive movement of the early 20th century that definition has been utterly disregarded. The Federal government has adopted a top down approach to governance that is completely at odds with the basis our republic was founded upon.

Note: I typically would post a portion of an article, and provide the link for the rest. This one was short and concise, and warranted the full text. Please refer to the link for this post and others by the author: