The new Republican House Majority

Garrett’s House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution. Invoking the “general welfare clause” or the “necessary and proper clause” would not be adequate constitutional citations. If a bill did not offer a sufficient constitutional justification, it would be subject to a Point of Order that could not be waived by the Rules Committee. As a result, each side would have ten minutes of debate followed by a vote on whether or not to table the point of order and move to consideration of the bill or amendment.

In no other way can the intent of the framers of the instrument be discovered. And there are more urgent reasons for looking to the ultimate purpose in examining the powers conferred by a constitution than there are in construing a statute, a will, or a contract. We do not expect to find in a constitution minute details. It is necessarily brief and comprehensive. It prescribes outlines, leaving the filling up to be deduced from the outlines. In Martin v. Hunter, [Footnote 4] it was said,

"The Constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did not suit the purpose of the people in framing this great charter of our liberties to provide for minute specifications of its powers, or to declare the means by which those powers should be carried into execution."

And with singular clearness was it said by Chief Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. State of Maryland, [Footnote 5]

"A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which it may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a political code, and would scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

If these are correct principles, if they are proper views of the manner in which the Constitution is to be understood, the powers conferred upon Congress must be regarded as related to each other, and all means for a common end. Each is but part of a system, a constituent of one whole. No single power is the ultimate end for which the Constitution was adopted. It may, in a very proper sense, be treated as a means for the accomplishment of a subordinate object, but that object is itself a means designed for an ulterior purpose. Thus the power to levy and collect taxes, to coin money and regulate its value, to raise and support armies, or to provide for and maintain

Page 79 U. S. 533

a navy, are instruments for the paramount object, which was to establish a government, sovereign within its sphere, with capability of self-preservation, thereby forming a union more perfect than that which existed under the old Confederacy.

The same may be asserted also of all the nonenumerated powers included in the authority expressly given

"to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specified powers vested in Congress, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It is impossible to know what those nonenumerated powers are, and what is their nature and extent, without considering the purposes they were intended to subserve. Those purposes, it must be noted, reach beyond the mere execution of all powers definitely entrusted to Congress and mentioned in detail. They embrace the execution of all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. It certainly was intended to confer upon the government the power of self-preservation. Said Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Bank of Virginia, [Footnote 6]

New team, same rules

DANA MILBANK
Wednesday, January 5, 2011; A15

For incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his House Republicans, something strange happened on the way to Wednesday's "Opening Day" of the new Congress.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits. Now, in the new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by $143 billion as part of a repeal of health-care reform.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues bemoaned the Democrats' abuse of House rules to circumvent committees and to prevent Republicans from offering amendments. Now, Cantor confirmed on Tuesday, Republicans will employ the very same abuses as they attempt the repeal.

For two years, the Republicans complained about unrelenting Democratic partisanship. Now they're planning no fewer than 10 investigations of the Obama administration, and the man leading most of those has already branded Obama's "one of the most corrupt administrations" in history.

For two years, the Republican minority vowed to return power to the people. Now the House Republican majority is asking lobbyists which regulations to repeal, hiring lobbyists to key staff positions and hobnobbing with lobbyists at big-ticket Washington fundraisers.

Even before the speaker's gavel is passed at noon from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner, it would appear that the Republicans are determined to form just as arrogant and overreaching a majority as the one they defeated.

Slate's John Dickerson questioned Cantor about this conundrum at a session the incoming majority leader had with reporters in his new offices Tuesday afternoon. Recalling that Obama settled a 2009 argument with Cantor by reminding the lawmaker that "we won" the election, Dickerson asked Cantor: "Why shouldn't Democrats take that same message from the way you've structured things with the repeal of health care?"

Cantor's answer? We won.

"It has been litigated according to the American people," he said. "What the American people are saying by the outcome of this election is we don't like this outside-the-mainstream agenda we've seen coming from Washington these last two years," he added.

This claim that the election gave Republicans a sweeping mandate was a recurring trope in Cantor's question-and-answer session. "We know very clearly that that election was a repudiation of what had gone on in this town," he said. In particular, he said, the election was a repudiation of health-care reform.

"We just need to repeal it as the American people have spoken out and said," Cantor argued. What's more, Cantor said, "the American people are expecting quick action," and if Democrats in the Senate try to block the Republicans' agenda, "they'll have to answer to the American people."

This was a rather expansive interpretation of the mandate voters gave Republicans in November. In exit polls, 48 percent said the new law should be repealed - while a nearly identical 47 percent said it should be left in place or expanded. Among voters that day, 41 percent held a favorable view of Republicans, no better than the 44 percent who thought favorably of the Democrats and Obama.

In the weeks after the election, many Republicans acknowledged that they had received something less than the full endorsement of the public. But the closer they got to Opening Day, the more they came to resemble the majority they had just vanquished.

The incoming majority vowed to avoid a lavish celebration of their ascent to power - but then a group of a dozen GOP House freshmen arranged a fundraising extravaganza ($50,000 for the VIP suite) at the W Hotel with singer LeAnn Rimes.

Republicans assembled new rules to avoid adding to the deficit - but exempted from the rules the health-care repeal and any tax cuts.

The new majority promised an "open" process to repeal health-care reform - but then decided to hold the vote using the same sort of "closed" rule that Democrats used to prevent the minority from offering amendments.

Along the way, the incoming majority has shifted from the populist themes of the campaign to a corporate message: asking lobbying groups for "assistance" in striking down regulations and hiring several lobbyists to key jobs, including a lobbyist from the medical-device industry to serve as Speaker John Boehner's policy director, a health-care lobbyist to oversee health-care issues on the commerce committee, and a lobbyist from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to handle derivatives on the Agriculture Committee.

So what about all those things Republicans talked about in the election? Like spending cuts?

"Stay tuned," Cantor said when asked Tuesday.

And a conservative alternative to health-care reform?

"Stay tuned," Cantor said.

We're tuned in, Mr. Leader. But you're broadcasting on a different frequency.

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

Since when is reverse the gear of progress???

H2O MAN wrote:

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

Fido wrote:

Since when is reverse the gear of progress???

Since when u have been going in the RONG direction, is when.

H2O MAN wrote:

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

Since when is reverse the gear of progress???

Fido wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

Since when is reverse the gear of progress???

Wrong way Pelosi and Reid put the country in reverse 4 years ago and Obama floored the gas pedal 2 years ago.
The progressive liberal democrats have backed this country into a deep ravine... the November election dispatched a tow truck and a team of forward drivers.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have already violated some of the vows they made in taking stewardship of the House.

Their pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget in one year won't be kept.

And for a coming vote seeking to repeal the health care overhaul, the first major initiative of the new Congress, lawmakers won't be allowed to propose changes to the legislation despite Republican promises to end such heavy-handed tactics from the days of Democratic control.

Is business as usual really back so fast? That's not clear one day after Democrat Nancy Pelosi yielded the gavel to the new Republican House leader, John Boehner. The GOP came to power in the House with an agenda that, if carried through, would in fact change how the government spends, taxes and does its legislative business.

But those with long memories may have the feeling they've seen this movie before.

After the GOP won control of Congress in the 1994 elections, the House churned out a series of votes aimed at fulfilling promises made in the party's "Contract With America." Most hit a dead end in the Senate. The GOP's new governing document, "A Pledge to America," covers many of the same themes and faces many of the same problems.

The effort to repeal the health care law, for one, is expected to pass in the House and fail in the Senate, going nowhere.

A look at some of the Republican promises in the campaign that delivered them control of the House, and their prospects now:

CUT SPENDING: "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone," the GOP pledge stated.

It turns out $100 billion is way out of reach.

By the time the current stopgap spending bill expires March 4, five months of the budget year — which began Oct. 1 — will have passed. Republicans acknowledge it's unrealistic to force even deeper cuts for the rest of the budget year to make up for money that's already been spent at the current, higher levels.

What is more, Republicans juiced up the $100 billion promise in the first place by using as their starting point President Barack Obama's $1.128 trillion budget request, a theoretical figure that was never approved by Congress.

Republicans are bristling at accusations that they're backtracking from the $100 billion promise even as they concede they can't pull it off. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Republicans will set spending limits "for the remainder" of the budget year at levels in effect before the 2009 stimulus.

___

REFORM CONGRESS: "We will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending," the pledge said. "House Democrats have relied heavily on what are known as 'martial law' procedures during the current Congress, particularly provisions that allow them to bring any bill to the floor with little or no notice and deny Republican members of Congress or even factions of their own party their right to debate and offer amendments or substitutes for consideration or vote."

Despite the promise of more open debate and the opportunity to offer floor amendments, GOP leaders will bring legislation to repeal Obama's signature health care overhaul bill to the floor next week and deny Democrats any chance to try to preserve popular provisions.

Republicans say that repealing the health care measure is a core campaign promise that deserves an up or down vote.

But it denies minority Democrats the chance to force individual votes on certain provisions of the new law, such as the ban on insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing illness or the measure allowing children to stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26.

Blocking votes on such popular provisions would protect newly elected Republicans, especially in swing districts, from politically difficult decisions. It also would guarantee a united GOP front against the bill.

Democrats also say that repealing the health care law would add to the deficit, contrary to the GOP's promise to curb runaway deficits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate says that the Democratic health measure would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the coming decade, savings that would disappear if the law is repealed. Republicans counter that that figure is unrealistic.

H2O MAN wrote:

Fido wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

They are officially sworn in and they face a heavy workload
that includes reversing the many wrongs created by the left.

Let's hope the left does not get in the way of progress this time.

Since when is reverse the gear of progress???

Wrong way Pelosi and Reid put the country in reverse 4 years ago and Obama floored the gas pedal 2 years ago.
The progressive liberal democrats have backed this country into a deep ravine... the November election dispatched a tow truck and a team of forward drivers.

Seriously??? You believe our problems in this country are purely short term??? I think things have been turning to **** almost from the start, and that they would not ever have gotten as bad as they have if we had once had democracy...

DEFINING CORRUPTION DOWN.... In October, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Rush Limbaugh he considers President Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times." He didn't even try to defend such a claim, and looked pretty ridiculous making it.

On Sunday, Issa tried again, insisting that the Obama administration, not the president himself, is "one of the most corrupt" in years. When he tried to back this up with some vaguely-specific evidence, Issa's argument quickly crumbled -- the alleged corruption didn't point to anything corrupt.

Yesterday, Issa gave this yet another shot, deciding to give a new definition to the very idea of political corruption.

Quote:

"I think people misunderstand the meaning of the word corrupt, and obviously, CNN does. 'Corrupt', or 'corrupted' or 'failure', it's no different than a disc drive that's given you some bits that are wrong," Issa said on CNN.

Issa continued, "I have never said it's illegal. I've never made any of the statements that are often said on CNN that implied wrong-doing of the president at a criminal level...."

Yes, we've reached the point that in the 21st century, the chairman of the House oversight committee -- who enjoys expansive oversight authority over the White House -- needs to parse the meaning of the word "corruption" on national television.

Worse, he thinks the administration is "corrupt" the way a computer disk is.

That there are voters and media outlets that take these clowns seriously continues to amaze me.
—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

Come on Cyclo. The house repubs are reviewing the constitution in the house today. Dosent that tell you something about their mindset!

It's a real breath of fresh air to see politicians taking our Constitution seriously.