Act forces Congress' return to limited government

[BigSky]

   

About time someone tries to stop the federal government from usurping power as it has been doing.


Act forces Congress' return to limited government

Legislator to colleagues: 'Your laws not authorized by Constitution'

By Chelsea Schilling
As a reminder of the federal government's limited powers, 20 representatives want to ensure that every single piece of legislation passing through Congress includes a statement citing specific constitutional authority for enacting it.

Sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act, states, "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress.

When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It states, "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."

"What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people," Shadegg said. "As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers."

For that reason, Shadegg said he has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he's been in Congress.

"This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. "… It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution."

Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:

1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposed legislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongs with the states or the people.

2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.

3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution

He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited powers to the national government to protect the people's freedom.

"As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers," Shadegg noted.

Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.

"Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."

While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.

WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.

The legislation has 19 co-sponsors – all Republicans.

Lamb suggested the act become the theme song of the tea parties taking place around the nation.

"Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill." Lamb wrote. "Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation."

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairs the House Rules Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee – where the act was referred Jan. 9 and remains today.

"Both of these committee chairs should be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails asking that H.R. 450 be brought to the House floor for a recorded vote," Lamb wrote.

Shadegg said the federal government has acted too long without constitutional restraint and has blatantly ignored principles of federalism.

He urged his colleagues to join him in "supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94418

[Wallyz]

I've seen this out there, and my question has been, isn't this the job of the Courts?  According to the constitution, the Supreme court is the arbiter of constitutionality.  If there is  an argument about the constitutionality of the law, a person can appeal that law.  If they lose, the law is deemed consittuitonal.

Does this law use the courts to enforce it edicts?  If so, what is the point of the law?  If not, what is the means to enforce me.

[BigSky]

Actually it was Marbury v Madison in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court;s role to review all acts of Congress where Constitutionality was at issue.

Problem is the SC only takes a select number of cases a year.  Problem is Congress passes so many bill regardless if they are Constitutional or not that the SC would never have time to hear them all.

Look how long it took them to change the Plessy ruling and how long before they actually took on what the Second Amendment means.  Especially in light of the fact that from day one the founding fathers stated over and over again what the Second Amendment means.  We just cant wait 200 years or more to have issues of something being Constitutional or not decided.

[Wallyz]

Seems to be an issue for the electorate then.  What is the alternate enforcement mechanism if not the courts?

[BigSky]

This bill would go a long ways in doing it.  Mandating Congress prove by what authority they have to introduce and pass such a bill.

In addition I would penalize those in Congress that introduce bills that are found to be unconstitutional.  Have penalties such as prison terms, steep fines and loss of government pensions and terminated from office.

[Wallyz]

Right, but what authority decides what is constitutional and what isn't?  You are assuming that is knowable, and will be agreed upon.  There needs ot be a process to say this is, this isn't.  If you have congress vote on it, it will say that the stuff it wants is constitutional.  They would then be able to interpret the constitution without any balancing authority.  The Executive? same thing.

[BigSky]

The founding fathers have made quite clear what powers the federal government is to have.  This point is driven home by the 10th Amendment.

It should be upon those introducing such bill first prove by the Constitution whatever bill they introduce is within their scope.

This would make it much easier for the SC to take a quick look to see if it passes muster or not. 

Instead what we have is unconstitutional laws that take years if not decades or more to get a case to be heard by the SC before they are deemed Constitutional or struck down.