Jon what is so telling is that according to Walter Williams the biggest
percentage of co sponsers since the bill was introduced in 1995 by an AZ GOP
congressman has been 15%.
Its been no more when either party had a majority.
I've pointed this out several times on the Human Events website
comment section.--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <jon.rol...@...>
wrote:
>
> We support the
>
> Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 450
> <http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/88474.aspx> and S. 1319
> <http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/88475.aspx>, "To
> require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United
> States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes."
>
> The key provision of H.R. 450 (S. 1319 reads virtually the same): "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."
>
> However, it is not the complete solution some of its proponents are
> claiming.
>
> 1. It establishes a rule of procedure for each house, which would
> normally require a 2/3 vote to suspend or amend, but the chair of a
> session may reject a point of order on the issue, and it then requires
> only a majority to sustain the decision of the chair.
>
> 2. Any subsequent bill may suspend, repeal, or make an exception of this
> rule for that bill.
>
> 3. It doesn't insure that the constitutional authority cited be
> accurate. it merely asks Congress to include a "finding" that would cite
> to the Constitution that the courts can seize on when they "defer" to
> acts of Congress. For example, it could just claim that every act was
> authorized by the Commerce Clause, no matter how absurd such a claim
> might be, and the courts would probably go along with that.
>
> 4. Because of (3), it could actually make the situation worse, by
> driving even faster the congressional violations of the Constitution and
> the court precedents that allow them to do so.
>
> About the only thing that might actually work would be some of the Draft
> Amendments <http://www.constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm> I have
> proposed. Short of that, we are left with establishing state
> nullification commissions
> <http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/01/cautions-for-nullification-proponents.html>
> to lead statewide civil disobedience of unconstitutional federal
> actions, which may still be necessary, but is not a clean solution.
>
> -- Jon
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org jon.rol...@...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
