Congress and the Constitution

Tar.
Feathers.
Rail.
Conyers.

(some assembly required)

Maybe Conyers, the great legal scholar, should have given his wife a little free legal advice. You know, something like DON'T TAKE BRIBES, STUPID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers#Bribery_conviction_of_wife.2C_Monica_Conyers

What a tool.

And Obama is a constitutional scholar. LOL!

Any chance that he'll lose his district after the census? Might be a good outcome

“The good and welfare clause? Sure, why not? As Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said lately, “We make ‘em up as we go along.”

[W-III]

I hate to break it to the world, but if the issue is the government in the past forcing every man in the country to buy something, the 1792 militia Act fits the bill. It required all able bodied White men (essentially all the people who could vote and or own property at the time) to buy a musket, with bayonet, and of a particular caliber. And if the man didn't do this he would be fined until he complied with the law.

Granted the gun controlists and the progressives say the law was never enforced and ignored by 1800. But I have found amendments to this law from the early 1790's to the last in 1820. Thus, it can be proven it was enforced for over three decades (it actually ceased to be enforced by most States in the 1840s). Granted it was a State revolt lead by Massachusetts that finally ended enforcement. But it was done by the founding fathers.

Just as a point of differentiation, I do not think the law required the purchase of anything but instead that enrolled members of the militia had to provide themselves with certain items.

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
(http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)"

Congress was specifically given authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia under Article 1, Section 8.

Historically in America, providing for arming the militia was understood to mean that all of the able-bodied free men (not just those required to train) would be required to obtain their own arms. Virtually every American colony (except Pennsylvania) had required that action because they relied upon the free adult male population to defend the colony (slaves of course excepted).

There is no constitutional authority over health care or eduction provided in the Constitution. Congress was not even trusted to train the militia by the either the Antifederalists or the Federalists, much less to provide eduction for all Americans or delve into and make descisions regarding the personal life of everyone.

Per the Tenth Amendment, power over these areas is reserved to the states or to the people until the Constitution is amended.

How would John Conyers know if the Health care bill was Constitutional or not?

Wasn't he the guy who made the statement a few weeks ago that he doesn't bother reading bills before he votes on them?

[W-III]

I think it's time that term limits, age limits, and basic competency testing be a prerequisite for election to federal office.

Time for a Constitutional Amendment.

Oh, while we're at it, a method for the electorate in a state to recall it's federal legislators.

How about requiring our law makers to assert, under penalty of perjury, that they have read and understand the legislation on which they are voting.

We don't need standards for members of Congress so much as we need them for voters.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

When was this part of the constitution changed? The US Army has
existed and been funded for a lot longer than 2 years.

Joel - the Army budget is voted on each year, the intent was that Congress would always have a veto over the Army by being able to cut off funding, since no money could be budgeted to the Army more than two years in advance. The downside is it REALLY messes with major procurement contracts... And it sucks to be in the military when Congress is having a budget fight and is late passing one.

RE: no Appropriation: It doesn't say "renewed;" it says, simply, "no." Temporarily raised "Armies" (note the plural) were meant to be just that -- temporary, i.e., limited to two years. Any other interpretation logically allows a Standing Army. We already know that the 2A Militia was meant to be a "Switzerland"[Jackson, 1791] model citizen-militia defense as a "substitute"[Hamilton, Federalist 29] to "prevent the establishment of a standing army."[Gerry, 1789]