Boehner's First Order of Business
What should it be? My suggestion is: not repeal of Obamacare, nor extension of tax cuts. Those can come soon enough. The very first piece of legislation to come before the new House should be the Enumerated Powers Act. As explained in a Heritage memo:
The Act would require all legislation introduced in Congress to contain a concise explanation of the constitutional authority empowering Congress to enact it.Failure to comply would make a bill subject to a point of order, a procedural device to delay consideration until the problem is corrected or the objection overruled.
Why? Unlike Obamacare and taxes, this is a quick win. It doesn’t require lengthy negotiations and the Democrats can’t even try to spin this as some evil corporate plot. Passage of the Act would send a strong message to the Tea Party, and it keeps faith with one of the core promises in the Pledge to America. It’ll fly through the House and immediately put Reid and Obama on the defensive. If they oppose it, it looks terrible. If they support it, then they have conceded one of the major planks of the GOP argument – that government ought to be constitutional. Then the GOP can move to the other items of their agenda saying “even Reid and Obama agree that all federal laws have to be grounded in the Constitution …”
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Great idea. Perhaps a suite of reforms aimed at the general abuse of the legislative process that the ObamaCare bill displayed could be offered.
Promises of fair play and transparency have proven to be worthless. Let's put into law.
May '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Interesting, Mr. Freedman. Very interesting.
Jul '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Can We apply it to existing legislation?
Jul '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Great idea.
It's a shame that the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution isn't enough...
May '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Do the Republicans actually believe this though?
Jun '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
This is a fantastic idea, though I'd expect to hear the phrase "living document" quite a bit more if it passed!
Oct '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
That is brilliant strategy. Anything that can be done to strengthen the original intent of the Constiitution should be done. Put first things first!
Feb '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
I love this! A lack of proper constitutional rule is most definitely at the root of many of our problems.
The Constitution is a living and breathing document... it's not set in stone; it just requires you to actually amend it if you want to make it change.
"Don't like what it says? Amend it!" That's what we should shove in the opposition's face. But the fact that amending it requires so much consensus makes it hard for them, which is why they have settled on what they mean by "living and breathing" which is to say, subject to the reinterpretations and whims of judges. But that makes the Constitution effectively moot.
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
The voters do, and that's what matters. There's no doubt that Democrats will try to skirt the Act's requirements with vague references to "the Commerce Clause" or "the General Welfare Clause." But this will have the great virtue, over time, of sharpening the debate over the government's size. The more the public realizes that almost the entire regulatory state has been extrapolated from the interstate commerce clause, the harder it will be to justify the next big Consolidated Omnibus Anti-Gingivitis or whatever bill.
Aug '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Here! Here!
Aug '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
Sounds good to me. Importantly, your first observation is valid too - don't squander political capital and goodwill on an initially quixotic attempt to repeal obamacare. Build up more political capital and goodwill with small, achievable, sound and cost free steps.
Sep '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
I guess I don’t understand this proposal. I would imagine Congressman as the Supremes have done would justify anything and everything either under the Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause. Grossman’s assumptions that this would lead these yahoos into taking the Constitution seriously are wrong. If I remember correctly the mandates in the healthcare bill were attacked on constitutional grounds. What happened? Ron Paul routinely raises constitutional objections to no avail. The problem is the type of people that get elected. No farcical symbolic procedural maneuver will make an iota’s worth of difference. The fact that this government is larger than anything the founders and Constitution envisioned is known by the American people. What do you think all the TP noise has been about.? People are not looking for more symbolic hot air. Passing a house rule that made any bill which contained an earmark subject to a rule of order would have teeth and at least curtail some of the bribery. But in all likelihood there are not enough GOP votes to pass such a rule.
Oct '10
Re: Boehner's First Order of Business
I disagree that it is symbolic hot air. Supreme Court declaring a law unconstitutional demonstrates afterthought in the process whereas this would be constitutional forethought. There's a reason why unconstitutional laws get passed and it is because that is not the function of the legislative body. Although it may not stop such laws, it may cause pause for consideration which is well beyond "we have to pass it to see what it contains" and possibly stoke debate (like on Ricochet!). It would be an easy House victory and again starkly contrast the new House with the Senate and White House. It is an interesting proposal that may yield a high ROI for the political capital spent. I agree with your rule of order proposal.