House GOP may now require that any legislation specify where in the Constitution it’s authorized. This is will probably confuse Democrats as they thought they were just supposed to grab as much power as they can and try to get liberals in the courts to back them up. And some probably don’t even know the Constitution is an actual document and thought it was just a intangible concept like “humility” or something. I’m guessing, though, they’ll figure it out and just write, “The Commerce Clause” on everything they pass.
Still, maybe they’ll write something like, “This is justified by Article V, Section 2, which states, ‘Congress can pass any legislation if it’s to force lesser people to do what smart people in Congress believe is best.'” This would confirm our suspicions that maybe the Democrats have been using the wrong Constitution this whole time. Then we can give them the correct Constitution, have a good laugh, and then beat them up for good measure.
Keep in mind that in the democrat world the Constitution says things like “separation of church and state” and “You can’t just leave it up to the parents”…oh, and also the sky is green, there are unicorns and everyone’s gay.
Son of Bob is right, Democrats believe all kinds of things that aren’t in the Constitution are. Thus, as part of their post Constitutional beating, mandatory classes on the Constitution while they are hooked up to a high voltage source are needed. Every time a Democrat gives a wrong answer, which should all the time, they get shocked and beaten. Even if they give the right answer, shock ’em and beat them anyway. It’s the right thing to do.
I have visions of Nancy and Harry in the back room with a copy of the constitution and a pair of those huge kindergarten crayons writing the words “cuz itz whut jeezuz wood doo” in the margin.
Well, and it also has words like “welfare” and “regulate” in it which they regard as legislative “blank checks.” Also embedded in the document somewhere (judging by recent legislation) must be the words nanny, green, global warming, fat kids, compassion, poor people and losers.
Strawman argument. That rule has been around for the past 8 congresses in one form or another. That’s why people even know about the Commerce Clause.
The better rule would be to require a definition in each bill why such-and-such legislation cannot or should not be handled by the States. Oh, and each should also specify where in the Constitution it’s authorized.
“Here! Right here! It says so right here in the Congress Clause, er, the Invisible Sky Fairy Clause! Whatever! It says, ‘Listen to Harry’s invisible friend, Bob.’ And Bob says the Founding Fathers told him to redistribute your wealth to a sketchy bank account in the Cayman Islands. Shut up.”
Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!…Harry ( I hate slavery) Reid, Washington DC.
Wrong constitution, Frank. Harry and Nancy are reading the Soviet constitution.
I like Article VII, Section II of the US constitution that requires us face punch all hippies.
Article VII, Section III orders a good moon nuking. I can go along with that.
Dirty Harry will be in pinstripes one day because after Obama gets shown the door there will be investigations of criminal acts commited by over half of his gang.
We’d need a squad of Constitution Cops, kind of like Eliot Ness and the Untouchables, to enforce such a rule, and of course to be in charge of the beatings, electro-shock, and water-boarding to let everyone know they were serious.
We need Constitutional Cannons to fire people out of who violate the Constitution. Thus, removing the necessity of the Supreme Court to hear all but very important matters like Hippie Punchin’ and Rail Guns for every citizen!
Unfortunately this only means that they’ll have to run the legislation through a few tests of their own design, rather than through the test the legislation should be run through: original intent.