Citizens Question The US Congress' Ignorance Or Corruption
Members Of Congress Do Not Know The US Constitution
&
Do Not Read A Bill Before Signing It Into Law
Congressional Leaders Fight Against Posting Bills Online
They that forsake the law praise the wicked:
but such as keep the law contend with them.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice:
but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
(Pr 28:4 & Pr 29:2)
Congress: Read the Constitution!
The Constitution: ...men of honor knelt
in common prayer for guidance and crafted a compromise that was truly
inspired.
Nov. 14, 2009
Congress: Read the Constitution!
by Henry Lamb
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115972
Speculation about Roland Burris followed him to the U.S. Senate, where he opened his mouth and removed all doubt. When a reporter asked him to identify the specific constitutional language that authorized the federal government to mandate individual health insurance, he stumbled a bit, and then said it is that part that says "health, welfare and defense of the country." The word "health" is not in the Constitution.
Nancy Pelosi didn't even try to answer when she was asked the same question. Her reply was "Are you serious? Are you serious?" (Yes we are). Sen. Patrick Leahy's answer was not much better. He said, "We have plenty of authority. Why would you say we have no authority?" Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that Article I, Section 8 limits the power of Congress to very specific, enumerated powers.
Burris' staff assistant said Burris was referring to the Constitution's preamble, which says the Constitution was established to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." Fortunately, the founders were not content to assume that "the general welfare" would consist of whatever Roland Burris, or any other legislator, may think is appropriate. That's precisely why the founders didn't stop at the preamble. They were very deliberate in their selection of words that created the U.S. Government.
Consider the context out of which the government arose: a brand new nation born on bloody battlefields that separated a national infant from a tyrannical giant. The infant nation consisting of 13 independent parts lacked unity, coordination and strength. Some of the founders wanted the new government to be much like the government of England, strong and in control of the 13 colonies. Others feared such a government would soon become as tyrannical and unjust as the government of the king.
From these two opposing views, men of honor knelt in common prayer for guidance and crafted a compromise that was truly inspired. To make the laws, there would be two houses of Congress, one elected by the people every two years, the other elected by the state legislatures to serve staggered six-year terms. To be absolutely sure that this Congress would not become as tyrannical as King George, the founders spelled out exactly what the Congress was empowered to do. These powers are set forth in Article I, Section 8.
Moreover, to be sure that there could never be any misunderstanding about the limitations of congressional power, the Bill of Rights' 10th Amendment includes this statement: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Prodded by presidents over the years, Congress has often ignored these limitations.
Franklin Roosevelt pushed Congress to enact more legislation outside the limits of constitutional authority than any president until Obama. The Supreme Court finally reined in Roosevelt. When challenged by constituents, or minority-party opponents, Constitution-busting majorities blandly claim powers to do whatever they want to do by referring to the "general welfare" clause. The first paragraph of Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to "lay and collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
If the founders had intended the Constitution to grant congressmen the power to enact any legislation they believed would promote the general welfare of the United States, there would be no need for another word in this section. There are 17 more paragraphs in this section, and each paragraph grants Congress the power to do very specific things. None, however, grants Congress the power to allow government to go into the insurance business, or the automobile manufacturing business, or the finance business. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Congress to restrict the type or quantity of energy that may be consumed.
When challenged, members of Congress often point to the "general welfare" clause or to the "commerce" clause to justify their actions that go beyond constitutional limitations. More often than not, these responses reveal constitutional ignorance or outright deceit. Congress has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states." This doesn't mean, however, that because a migrating goose might land near a mud hole on a farmer's private property, the federal government has the power to prohibit the farmer from draining the mud hole. The government actually imposed this very rationale as the basis for implementing its wetland policy. Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually nullified this nonsense, as it nullified many of Roosevelt's extravagances.
These matters should not be left to the Supreme Court. Men of honor should acknowledge and accept the limitations of congressional power spelled out in the Constitution. Since Congress has consistently displayed a lack of honor, especially under the current leadership, people who vote should demand that Congress enact the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 450), to force federal lawmakers to do what their honor should demand: identify and cite the constitutional authority for any legislation they introduce. For this to happen, Congress must have a majority of honorable people.
Novel Idea: Read the Bills Act
Read the Bills Act
by DownsizeDC.org
www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws
The Read the Bills Act (RTBA) is legislation written by Downsize DC, a non-profit organization focused on decreasing the size of the federal government. The intention of the Read the Bills Act is to require Congress to read the legislation that they pass. The proposed act is a response to the passing of bills like the Patriot Act that are thousands of pages long and are passed without copies being made available to the members of Congress who vote on the bill. The bill is aimed at decreasing the size of government and the speed at which it grows.
Requirements of Act: The Read the Bills Act would require each house of Congress, in the presence of a quorum, to read any bill that they vote on. If a member is not present at the reading, s/he will be required to sign a sworn affidavit saying that s/he has read the bill in order to vote in the affirmative. A member would be allowed to vote against a bill without reading it.
If a bill is amended at the last moment, Congress will be required to read, again in full, the bill before a quorum in front of Congress. The same rules applying to absent members will apply to all readings of last minute amendments to the legislation. Congress will also be required to post the newest version of the bill on their website at least seven days prior to a publicly-announced vote. Any amendments to the bill will yield a new posting on the Internet of the bill and another seven-day waiting period. It will also require that all bills coming up for renewal in Congress under sunset provisions will be subject to all rules of the Read the Bills Act.
Desired effect: The Read the Bills Act is intended to slow down Congress. Instead of passing many large bills in a short amount of time, Congress will have to either pass shorter bills or pass fewer bills than they currently do. Theoretically, legislation will become shorter and less complex. In order to be able to read the bills, Congress will have to tackle fewer issues and have fewer projects in each bill.
Due to the seven day waiting period, Congress will not be able to pass as many "pork" projects because the public will have a chance to voice their objection. Old legislation coming up under sunset provisions will probably become shorter because Congress will have to reread the bills. Congress will not be able to insert last-minute secret clauses because they will have to reread the entire bill with the new additions and wait another seven days before passing the legislation.
Congressional Leaders Fight Against Posting Bills Online
"The American
people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they
hide behind to do their work."
October 6, 2009
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
by Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional Correspondent
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Congressional-leaders-fight-against-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html
What you don't know can hurt you?
House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
$789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
$700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.
As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote. Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote. "The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government. The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them. "It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."
A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule. Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill. The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting. "The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.
But Baird warned of public backlash. "Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."
They that forsake the law praise the wicked:
but such as keep the law contend with them.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice:
but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
(Pr 28:4 & Pr 29:2)
_____________________________________
Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?
Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.