Congress shouldn't concern itself with the constitution

[Rob's House]

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/10/01/constitution_and_politics_a_toxic_mix_to_many_liberals/page/full/

 

Newsweek's Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP's Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a "citation of constitutional authority" for every proposed piece of legislation. "We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary," Adler wrote. "An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary."

[GG]

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/10/01/constitution_and_politics_a_toxic_mix_to_many_liberals/page/full/

 

He's right. It's not up to Congress to determine whether a law is legally Constitutional.

[Rob's House]

He's right. It's not up to Congress to determine whether a law is legally Constitutional.

So when they vow to uphold the constitution, what is that exactly?

[GG]

So when they vow to uphold the constitution, what is that exactly?

 

It's an empty statement that has no legal validity until its Constitutionality is blessed by SCOTUS. But it makes for a good campaign slogan.

[DC Tom]

He's right. It's not up to Congress to determine whether a law is legally Constitutional.

 

I would, however, hope that Congress wouldn't waste time with legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional. The judiciary's role is to rule in the gray areas, not to judge every single piece of legislation that comes along.

[GG]

I would, however, hope that Congress wouldn't waste time with legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional. The judiciary's role is to rule in the gray areas, not to judge every single piece of legislation that comes along.

 

That is the unstated premise, especially when there's no ambiguity on the vast majority of laws passed. But my hunch is that the GOP proposal targets those gray area laws where there's a definite split of opinion between right and left, and I wouldn't want Congress to be the ones making that final decision on whether a law is Constitutional or not (that in itself is illegal).

Edited October 1, 2010 by GG

[Rob's House]

It's an empty statement that has no legal validity until its Constitutionality is blessed by SCOTUS. But it makes for a good campaign slogan.

Sorry, but no. Once a bill is signed into law it is valid law until the SC rules it unconstitutional, not the other way around. And no, the legislature is not free to knowingly pass laws in violation of the constitution.

[GG]

Sorry, but no. Once a bill is signed into law it is valid law until the SC rules it unconstitutional, not the other way around. And no, the legislature is not free to knowingly pass laws in violation of the constitution.

 

It's a circular argument, because Congress cannot say that a law does not violate the Constitution without that law going before the Supreme Court. Without that SCOTUS review, it's an empty statement.

[Rob's House]

It's a circular argument, because Congress cannot say that a law does not violate the Constitution without that law going before the Supreme Court. Without that SCOTUS review, it's an empty statement.

No one claimed that Congress gets final say on constitutionality of a law. Simply that the members of Congress should determine that, in their estimation, a law is constitutional before passing it. It's not a very controversial statement. It's mind boggling that formerly respected scholars would question such a thing.

[GG]

No one claimed that Congress gets final say on constitutionality of a law. Simply that the members of Congress should determine that, in their estimation, a law is constitutional before passing it. It's not a very controversial statement. It's mind boggling that formerly respected scholars would question such a thing.

 

Again, it's implied that when they pass a law, it's Constitutional. For them to say it is Constitutional prior to SCOTUS review violates the Constitution, which is exactly what the scholar is objecting to.

[Rob's House]

Again, it's implied that when they pass a law, it's Constitutional. For them to say it is Constitutional prior to SCOTUS review violates the Constitution, which is exactly what the scholar is objecting to.

Sorry dude, you're usually fairly sound, but you're off on this one. I suggest you read the column in it's entirity.

[GG]

Sorry dude, you're usually fairly sound, but you're off on this one. I suggest you read the column in it's entirity.

 

I would love to, but the pop ups won't let me, so pass.

 

I don't need to read the column, to understand the premise. GOP wants to attach nice sounding words to each piece of legislation that the lawmakers believe the law doesn't violate the Constitution. Well, no **** Sherlock. All laws implicitly say that, otherwise they wouldn't be passed. Those words have no legal bearing and are electioneering fluff.

 

If legislators wanted to truly be honest with the Constitution, they wouldn't be resorting to parliamentary bcakroom committee crap that they've been pulling for a generation that leads the executive to its own set of shenanigans, that in turn circumvents the Constitution.

 

When both sides of the aisle start adresisng how they conduct business instead of pushing sloganeerism, then they will be taken seriously.

[DC Tom]

For them to say it is Constitutional prior to SCOTUS review violates the Constitution.

 

Only, I believe, if they imply that their say is somehow legally binding. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutionality, but not the only one - Congress, in my mind, is perfectly free to say "This law is constitutional", it's simply SCOTUS's right to come back and say "Nuh-uh".

 

The real issue would be when Congress says "We didn't pass this bill because it's unconstitutional", and then SCOTUS can't rule (since they can't judge the constitutionality of non-laws). But arguably that's within Congress' purview, since they're the ones that pass the laws.

 

Those words have no legal bearing and are electioneering fluff.

 

That, however, is a clear truth either way.

[Rob's House]

I would love to, but the pop ups won't let me, so pass.

 

I don't need to read the column, to understand the premise. GOP wants to attach nice sounding words to each piece of legislation that the lawmakers believe the law doesn't violate the Constitution. Well, no **** Sherlock. All laws implicitly say that, otherwise they wouldn't be passed. Those words have no legal bearing and are electioneering fluff.

 

If legislators wanted to truly be honest with the Constitution, they wouldn't be resorting to parliamentary bcakroom committee crap that they've been pulling for a generation that leads the executive to its own set of shenanigans, that in turn circumvents the Constitution.

 

When both sides of the aisle start adresisng how they conduct business instead of pushing sloganeerism, then they will be taken seriously.

Ok, I didn't realize you couldn't access that. I now understand why you would make that argument based on that quote taken out of context. I'll summarize for you:

 

A candidate said her "litmus test" on legislation would be whether it's constitutional. She was ONLY saying she would apply a SELF-IMPOSED limitation to only vote on that which is constitutional. Nothing more nothing less.

 

To this morons, like the one quoted, came out of the woodwork to claim that members of Congress had no need to concern themselves with the constitutionality of the bills they vote on because that's for the Judiciary, and only the Judiciary, to decide.