Skip to main content

Who's Afraid of the Constitution's Enumerated Powers?

Republican Representative John Shadegg from Arizona has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act in the United States House of Representatives every year since 2002. It has not yet become law. It would "require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." Pretty simple, huh? Ron Paul is one of its co-sponsors. Guess which 2 representatives from Utah are not sponsors? (1 is currently a sponsor)

Here is the ENTIRE text of the bill:
A BILL

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Enumerated Powers Act'.

SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW.

(a) Constitutional Authority for This Act- This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution.

(b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required- Chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 the following new section:

`Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause

`Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.'

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 102 the following new item:

`102a. Constitutional authority clause.'.
Yet in the last six years, this bill has never made it out of the Rules and Judiciary Committees, over which in that period Republicans and Democrats alike have presided.

Someone who does not support this legislation is not fit for public office, let alone being a member of the United States Congress. Every SINGLE co-sponsor of the bill is Republican. That doesn't surprise me.

The answer to the question--which 2 Utah representatives are NOT co-sponsors of the bill? Answer: Chris Cannon and Jim Matheson. Rob Bishop supports it.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous10/25/2007 09:25:00 AM

    You want Congress to actually articulate the authority by which they act? You're living in a dream world, man... :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. rmwarnick10/25/2007 11:08:00 AM

    The Bush administration has repealed Article I of the Constitution by executive fiat. Henceforth, the basis for all legislation is "because the Decider wants it that way."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank Staheli10/25/2007 11:18:00 AM

    I think they changed Article I to read "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in George W. Bush, and shall be transferred to either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani at the next inauguration."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more