Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

House Republicans and the Constitution: Opening the Door to New Battles

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Less than a week before taking over control of the House of Representatives, Republican leaders have announced plans to implement a new rule they say will impact debate on every substantive measure generated by lawmakers in that chamber of Congress. Starting this month, the sponsor of each new bill will have to identify, chapter and verse, the constitutional underpinning for the exercise of congressional power contemplated by the proposed measure. In other words, one part of the legislative branch will initially offer its own interpretation of the constitutionality of its pending work before the federal judiciary is called upon to offer its conclusive view of the matter.

The new House rule -- requiring what's been labeled a "Constitutional Authority Statement" -- is said to be a nod to the waxing influence of tea party conservatives on Capitol Hill. It will come to the House this week along with two other Constitution-themed initiatives from the new Republican majority. On Jan. 6, reports The Washington Post, some House members plan to take turns reading the Constitution aloud on the floor of the chamber, an exercise which could take a few hours, depending upon how many representatives choose to participate. In addition, last month, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia accepted an invitation from Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) to come to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks or months to help "teach" constitutional doctrine to incoming members of the House's conservative caucus.

Under the new procedural rule, set forth in a five-page memorandum reportedly distributed last week to all House members, the House clerk will soon be required to reject outright any legislation that does not cite "as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress" that support the measure. The effect of the new standard will be to force lawmakers at the earliest stages of the legislative process to explicitly identify the perceived legal basis for the proposed exercise of federal legislative power. The purpose of the new rule presumably will be to screen out from any meaningful deliberation proposed legislation that House lawmakers believe is beyond the scope of congressional authority. That very argument -- that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause, for example -- has been made, with force, in the ongoing legal and political battle over the validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.

Beyond its symbolic power, however, it is unclear what impact the new rule will have upon the nation. Under axiomatic legal precedent, virtually all congressional action is presumed valid anyway, at least initially. Moreover, by taking their oaths of office, lawmakers swear to abide by the Constitution, and virtually all legislation is vetted for constitutional support on some level by government lawyers before it makes it to committee or to the floor of the House. It is also quite obvious, from 223 years of legal and political debate on the topic, that the text of the Constitution itself, including those portions that deal with legislative power, is susceptible to many different (and often evolving) views and interpretations, a practical reality that would likely render most "Constitutional Authority Statements" controversial and contentious.

Unintentionally previewing this situation this past June, retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter said in a commencement address to Harvard University: "The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time." Another reason, he said, "is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony." Yet another reason, he added, is that "constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them."

The requirement that all of this background work be made explicit in pending legislation will likely add a new layer of transparency to the legislative process. It will certainly force out into the open more of the legal philosophies of the representatives. But it could also add a new layer of conflict to what many voters (and some politicians) already believe is a counterproductive dynamic in Congress. What will happen, for example, if, as expected, lawmakers disagree about the merits of a particular Constitutional Authority Statement? Will Republicans and Democrats argue over that gateway issue before getting to the merits of the legislation? Will the House clerk be authorized to make judgment calls about the constitutional provisions presented? And what impact will any such statements have upon the work of the Senate, still under Democratic leadership?

Even assuming that House members can agree upon the constitutional provision or doctrine supporting a particular bill, it is unclear what legal effect, if any, the statements will have upon the courts (or the law). The legislative branch does not have the power to definitively declare its own work constitutional. That role rests squarely with Article III federal judges, who were granted life tenure under the Constitution so they could serve as a bulwark against the tyranny that can (and occasionally has) come from majority rule. Indeed, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1803 in its foundational case Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution grants the judiciary, and not the other two branches, broad final say over the validity of virtually all congressional action. Although the Marbury decision remains controversial in some cramped quarters, it is virtually unthinkable that the current Supreme Court, despite its conservative makeup, would now cede a large portion of its judicial review function back to the Congress by giving formal legal recognition to the Constitutional Authority Statements.

It is far more likely that the justices, and lower federal court judges, will simply consider the House statements as additional indicia of legislative intent -- if such analysis is necessary to determine the outcome of a particular case. In this sense, the statements may offer some federal judges guidance about how House members viewed the legal underpinnings of their work -- but the courts would not be bound to follow or even cite them in their opinions. House Republicans are free to strive for a role in interpreting the Constitution, in other words, but the job's already taken.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

I guess we will soon be hearing that Senators should be elected by state legislatures and that only property owners should have the vote. Next, there will be action to repeal the Federal government's right to collect income tax. Maybe Republicans will introduce legislation to repeal the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Then they can repeal the Amendments that allow African Americans and women the right to vote. These Republicans, allied with the Robber Barons, may just find out what Revolution is all about. They're ignorant; I am sick of them already and they havent even been in office a day.

January 04 2011 at 12:12 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
Rob & Kathy

jjohnblack0355:29 PM Jan 3, 2011
It was just announced that on January 12 the republicans in the house will hold a vote on health care repeal. Will somebody please tell me why they are wasting time on this nonsense when anybody with half a brain knows it is not going to happen. And what ever happened to what the American people think is this country's top priority which is jobs?
That's a good question. Don't ask don't tell was a great job producer wasn't it? .

January 03 2011 at 9:56 PM Report abuse -8 rate up rate down Reply
Rob & Kathy

firstad7:25 PM Jan 3, 2011
Congress deciding if each of the bill they present is constitutional is the beginning of tyranny from the right.
You've got it backward. Tyranny will result if the constitution is ignored and government officials can implement whatever policies which increase their power and control...

January 03 2011 at 9:46 PM Report abuse -6 rate up rate down Reply
Rob & Kathy

"Are you serious?"- Nancy Pelosi's reply when asked to cite the constitutional authority to mandate health care coverage...

January 03 2011 at 9:34 PM Report abuse -8 rate up rate down Reply

Proposed Amendment 28: Congress shall enact no law that does not apply equally to all members of Congress as well as the people that they represent. Here's one that will NEVER pass! I'm sure Congress would rule it "Unconstitutional"!

January 03 2011 at 9:34 PM Report abuse +15 rate up rate down Reply

The Congress has let the Courts have more power then wrighters of the Constitution ment for them to have.There role is to judge if a law is Contitutional or not ,or a action of the other two branchs of goverment is lawfull or not, to judge right from wrong,guilty or not. Nowere in the Contitution does it say or give them the right to make law, there is nothing,that says they have right to make Case Law that right was given to the Congress only. Thank you for leting me have my say.

January 03 2011 at 9:12 PM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to grumpyskaggs's comment

Your spelling and grammatical issues aside, did you REALLY mean to assert that "the right to make Case Law...was given to the Congress only"???? How, my friend, could Congress make case law, since the courts, not the legislature, actually hear cases, make judgements, and, thereby, through stare decisis, establish case law? And just where, pray tell, do you think the Constitution gives Congress such a right? I eagerly await all replies at

January 04 2011 at 2:09 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

I think that it's pathetic that these new Congressmen have to have the Constitution read to them before they begin because the majority of them that were just elected have no experience and are completely unfamilliar with the Constitution that they swore to uphold! Perhaps we should rename Congress: "Sesame Street"!

January 03 2011 at 9:03 PM Report abuse +14 rate up rate down Reply

CARNAC the MAGNIFICENT sees a lot of grid lock in the 112th Congress' future. CARMAC also sees a lot of new freshman Congressmen in the 113th Congress.

January 03 2011 at 8:55 PM Report abuse +14 rate up rate down Reply

Some of us would be satisfied if the congress would just read the bills before they vote.

January 03 2011 at 8:10 PM Report abuse +19 rate up rate down Reply

Do you suppose it will be OK if they merely cite the Federalist papers where Hamilton points out that powers do not have to be specifically named in the constitution to exist?

In Federalist 81, discussing the powers of the Supreme Court, Hamilton noted: "In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...." [Emphasis in the original.]

And in Federalist 29, he specifically invoked the Article II "necessary and proper" clause to show that congress has powers not specifically enumerated.

How about Hamilton's "By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like."

Get that? "Specified exceptions," not "specified inclusions."

The conservatives often cite the Federalist Papers, but apparently don'ty read them

In Federalist 25 he wrote "Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed...."

For more on what the FF;'s and Founders though "limited government is (and it isn't what the right wingers say), see

January 03 2011 at 7:53 PM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to rjw918's comment

If I read the article correctly, the idea is to cite the constitution itself.

January 03 2011 at 8:55 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>