Is there a constitutionalist in the House?
There should be this January -- after Republicans elected by a wave of back-to-the-basics Tea Party activists and other conservatives are sworn in.
And to set the mood, newly minted Speaker of the House John Boehner will have the entire U.S. Constitution read on the floor of the House Jan. 6 by any members, Republican or Democrat, who want to participate.
It gets better.
Republicans who take control of the House in January will require that all new bills include a statement of "constitutional authority" from the sponsoring lawmaker citing what part of the Constitution authorizes the bill in question.
Cynics have been quick to deride the moves as window dressing, even suggesting they are designed to merely mollify Tea Partiers and other conservatives until they go away.
"I think it's entirely cosmetic," The Washington Post quoted Kevin Gutzman, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University who the newspaper called "a conservative libertarian (who) sympathizes with the Tea Party."
"This is the way the establishment handles grass-roots movements," Gutzman told the Post . "They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant. And then once they've humored them and those people go away, it's right back to business as usual."
Maybe. It certainly is fascinating -- and suspicious -- to see career politicians like Boehner get religion all of a sudden.
But so what? For one thing, even symbolic gestures to return to constitutional principles would be a good start.
In addition, if anyone thinks the American people, and in particular the patriots of the Tea Party movement, will be satisfied with a pat on the head and will go back to ignoring what goes on in Congress, then they've all got another thing coming.
The good professor may think all us bumpkins are -- how did he put it? -- "not fully cognizant." Forgive us for thinking more of Americans than that.
Yes, the momentum of the Tea Party will be difficult to sustain in the long run. There's a very distinct danger of the movement losing steam after its successes on Nov. 2 -- that peril being any notion that the job is done.
It's only just begun.
But we think the Tea Party folks know that.
Moreover, it's just possible that the requirement for a "constitutional authority" citation, over time, could change the culture in Congress ever so slightly, helping keep the thought of a restrained government somewhere in the back of their minds.
Of course, adherence to the Constitution should be at the front of their minds, since they take an oath to uphold it.
And just consider, if a bill's sponsor has stretched the meaning of a particular constitutional phrase or provision, the resulting debate in committee or on the House floor would be a healthy exercise -- one we'd like to see as much as possible. That kind of give-and-take could add to the legitimacy of legislation, and to the freedoms we all enjoy.
But even if you accept the rather cynical view that it's all just symbolism, we ask: What the heck would be wrong with that? Life surrounds us with all manner of symbols, and for good reason: They remind us of what's important, what our values are, what we should be mindful of.
Still, we submit that reading the Constitution in the House of Representatives is no more "cosmetic" than reading the Bible in church.
In fact, maybe Congress ought to follow the preacher's lead -- and do it once a week!
Bring on that old-time religion. It served us well for the first 200 years or so.
We all have the same Bible (Constitution), but when the Democrats discuss it they speak in tongues like a Pentecostal preacher at a Saturday night tent revival outside Grovetown, guitar playing in the background, with a line of people who want to be healed as he shouts for more money in the collection plate. Yawishovaje miahjereeeeeee.
Your editorial writer has it all wrong. I didn't say that Tea Party participants were "bumpkins." However, reading the Constitution at the opening of the new House, for the first time in history, will accomplish precisely nothing. So, too, in light of the current state of constitutional law, will a requirement that each bill be headed by reference to the constitutional language authorizing it: since 1937, the Supreme Court has said -- it still says -- that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to do virtually anything. So, virtually every bill will be headed by a reference to the Commerce Clause.
Feel vindicated? I think these acts of the new House majority are patronizing.
For more information on the current problems, see my books, _The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution_ and _Who Killed the Constitution?_
"not fully cognizant." ....that is what is wrong with barry and the painted sow pelosi and most liberals...they are actually under the delusion that they are smarter than the rest of us.....the People spoke..... and the only ones not "fully cognizant" are those fools who didn't listen.
Just a lot of fluff. The proof will not be in the rhetoric but in performance over time. As usual, the party that gained the most seats claims a mandate from the people and there is a lot of self-righteous chest thumping ... still a lot of fluff. To quote the movie: Show me the money.
If the Tea Party is indeed a grass roots movement and not an actual political party then there is almost no way to sustain the momentum claimed. If the momentum is to be sustained and ramped up, then the movement has to become organized. Once that happens it will become as corrupt as the rest.
If this current Congress can't or won't "show us the money" then they can certainly expect to be replaced at the next opportunity. Be careful what you wish for ... you might get it. Did the people touting the banner of the Tea Party listen during the election? We'll see.
Of course, there will always be the cheap personal attacks to fall back on.
Reading the Constitution at the opening of the new House cannot hurt; it might even be a start. The problem is that it is the questionable interpretation of the Constitution and its continuing re-interpretation by the Supreme Court that is the big issue. How many of you would wager that all of Congress, all of the Senate, the President and even all of the Supreme Court has even read the Constitution? From what I see, I don't believe many of them could even pass a 2nd grade reading test.
Betty hoop the person who said people were not fully cognizant is a conservative. That fact was clearly stated in the article. Congratulations, you just proved his point.
I agree with Guzman. I also think you will see the Tea Party calm down as it does not lash out at the repubs near as much as it should. In my opinion, most of the tea party crowd has been taken over by republican party which doesn't want small government unless it benefits them.
BettyBoop's point is that the conservatives ARE aware, but Pelosi, Obama and company are NOT even though they think they are, no matter what the professor believes.
I'm sorry but I did not read her post that way. She quoted the professor and then went into a vent about liberals thinking themselves superior intellectually to conservatives yet, in her mind, liberals are the ones lacking full awareness. Whatever your politics, the professor's point about citing to the Constitution being meaningless is spot on. However, SCOTUS has limited the commerce clause a bit in the past two decades.
Taylor B, the tea party movement first took out many republicans that were big government types. That was done in the primaries. Then it was time to remove the progressives in the general election, which was done with the largest swing of political power in the history of the US House. That is a mandate, not mere fluff as another poster incorrectly stated.
The tea party movement is already getting better organized and geared up for the next election cycle. Many lessons were learned this time around and I think the movement will play a much larger part in the future. The government should held accountable to the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.
Kevin Gutzman, the commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited power to do as they please. (Even though the current regime believes it does) A decision from a lower court just last week will most likely go to the Supreme on that very issue and I expect that the FL case along with the other states will end up there too. I don't see an outcome there that allows tyranny.
If not the Commerce clause, then they will cite the necessary and proper clause found in Article 1 Section 2 clause 18. While, this sounds good in theory and looks pretty darn cool...it will just make the sleazy politicians sneakier.
Good things take time. It's progess, not perfection!
Seestraight, im well aware of the tea party movement. I spoke at the last tax day tea party as the only non repub.
This is good news but in the end, that loser obama, you know the man with YEARS of community organizing experience, the one whose wife was never proud of America until her husband was elected, that clown will just sidestep congress & do what he wants to anyway. Show me some legislation that removes about 75% of the power from the messiah and his minions and I'll believe they are serious.
Kevin is right. More to the point, the national GOP always runs that half-hearted libertarian, limited government, free-market election-time propaganda when out-of-power, to unseat the Democrats. Then they get re-elected and spend like Democrats. It's politics as usual. Their reputation precedes themselves.
Give the Democrats they're due. They are more consistent. They promise you socialism, and give it to you good and hard. The Republicans merely pretend that crony capitalism and Big Government are free-markets and limited government respectively.
Conservatives and libertarians should be so jealous for their liberty they shouldn't give the GOP the benefit of the doubt anymore. We need an Article V convention that gives the states a concurrent majority to veto unconstitutional federal statutes, executive orders and judicial edicts. That's keeping with the federal character of the Union intended by the Founding Fathers. To save our Constitution, we must amend our Constitution. Otherwise, it's more of the same.
Consider a bill to fund defense. It's "Constitutional authority" is unquestioned. Add an amendment that military chaplains must counsel all non-homosexual personnel to accept homosexual practice as normal and acceptable. So much for "Constitutional authority!" Hopefully each and every part of a bill will have to be legal.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
