Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Frank Guinta has a self-professed "common sense approach to new legislation." Holding up the U.S. Constitution, he says,
“This is what I walk around with, this is what I will hold on the floor of the house to make sure that every piece of legislation I vote on, adheres to this basic principle.”
His solution to ensuring constitutional legislation is requiring every bill to have a statement citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.
"One thing that is different about this Congress from previous ones is the new House rule adopted yesterday, requiring every bill and joint resolution be accompanied by a statement explaining its constitutionality. As long as we stay within the limits allowed by the Constitution, we can act with the confidence as we do the people’s business.”
For an example, Guinta need look no further than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It contains a detailed statement outlining the constitutional authority for the individual insurance mandate:
"The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce."
"In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation."
But I'm pretty sure Guinta has disregarded this particular statement of constitutional authority. And therein lies the rub. Ezra Klein captures the absurdity of the whole exercise:
To presume that people writing what they think the Constitution means -- or, in some cases, want to think it means -- at the bottom of every bill will change how they legislate doesn't demonstrate a reverence for the document. It demonstrates a disengagement with it as anything more than a symbol of what you and your ideological allies believe.
In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they'll respect them. When they don't -- as we've seen in the case of the individual mandate -- they won't.
