Time: Sat Jul 12 17:18:32 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA06419; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 17:17:20 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14726; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 17:17:14 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 17:16:58 -0700 To: Jean Westphal <kidogo@ionet.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Where did I hear this idea first? <snip> > > AN ACCOUNTABLE CONGRESS >by John F. McManus >All who hold the U.S. Constitution in high regard will applaud the >action taken recently by House of Representatives. On January 7th, 1997 >the full House,acting under constitutional provision that each House of >Congress "determine the rules of its proceedings," created a new rule >which stated: >"Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public >character shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted >to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or >joint resolution." >members of the House of Representatives will henceforth be required >under Rule XI, Subparagraph (4), to cite the Constitution and add a >"Constitutional authority statement" to each proposal they introduce. >Not content with mere wording of its new rule, the House Rules >committee, led by Gerald Solomon (R-NY), offered its own analysis of the >new mandate. The January 7th CONGRESSIONAL RECORD contains the >committee's urging that House members refrain from referring to several >portions of the Constitution that have been widely but improperly cited >in past as justification for unconstitutional programs. While >acknowledging that proposed legislation springs from the actions of >other House committees, the Rules Committee cautions: "It is expected >that committees will not rely on the so called 'elastic' or 'necessary >and proper' clause and that they will not cite the preamble to the >Constitution as a specific power granted to the Congress by the >Constitution." >If this expectation is met, then some large loopholes through which the >federal power-grabbing wagon has been driven will now be closed. >However, the rules committee does not consider itself authorized to >judge the propriety of any claim of constitutionality presented to it. >Some congressmen will surely continue to torture the meaning and intent >of the Constitution,But the simple requirement that a "Constitutional >Authority Statement" be attached to each proposal will encourage each >member of Congress, and the public at large, to become familiar with >what the Constitution does and does not allow. >During the 1995-96 session of Congress, Representative John Shadegg >(R-AZ) sought to have this constitutional Authority statement mandated >by his proposed H.R. 2270. he gained 103 co-sponsors for the measure, >but it died for lack of support among the Republican leadership. Even if >the bill had won passage in the House, it would of faced an uphill >struggle for approval by the Senate and the President. >But the now-accomplished House action -- which Solomon was able to >achieve with the enthusiastic support of Representative Pomobo (R-CA) >and others - promises to be a less cumbersome and even more effective >route to the goal sought by Shadegg, Pomobo,Solomon, and other concerned >congressmen. True, the House can still suspend or replace any rule by >which the House has bound itself. But there can't be that many >congressmen who will openly cast a vote to ignore the Constitution. >Henceforth, members of the House will be forced to refer to the >Constitution when initiating legislation.some will undoubtedly continue >to introduce unconstitutional measures, but now they will be forced to >expose their contempt for the document --- and their oath to abide by >it -- to fellow congressmen and the public. We can only wonder what >clause in the Constitution will be mentioned as the supplier of >authorization for foreign aid, educational funding, subsidized housing >etc. >By virtue of of this most welcome rules change, the Constitution has >been rescued from being considered a venerable but meaningless antique. >And the American people have been given a new tool with which to judge >both legislators and their legislation. >The red flag the Rules Committee raised with respect to reliance on the >"elastic" or "necessary and proper" clause and the preamble reflects its >understanding of the limiting features of the Constitution. the >"elastic clause, which appears in Article I, Section 8 at the end of a >list of congressional powers,recognizes that Congress has all the >authority to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for >carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by their >Constitution in the Government of the United States ..."While both the >the power and the limitations contained in that statement are easy to >grasp, big-government promoters customarily cite this clause for >authorization to make virtually any kind of law imaginable. (It has come >to be referred to as the "elastic" clause because its true meaning has >been stretched almost beyond recognition.) The preamble's general >statement of the purposes for the Constitution has been similarly >misrepresented. >According to conventional wisdom,congressmen are empowered to legislate >in all but a few areas specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Yet >exactly the opposite is true: The Founders clearly intended all federal >authority to be tied specifically to the Constitution. This is what the >Tenth amendment resoundingly restates. >The rule holds some promise of reinstating limitations on federal power. >Thanks are in order to Solomon and other members of the House who on >January 7th, 1997, approved the package of rules under which they will >operate for the next two years. > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: William Bacon <wbacon@voicenet.com> > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail