Exactly. Also, see above post. A bill can be constitutional for reasons Congress never thought of. That’s the courts’ call. And adding a preamble does nothing but confuse that issue.
And when it does, that’s when RWs start crying “Extremism!” or worse.
Just as a Point of Information: Congress could follow that silly idea by just printing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 at the top of all legislation.
The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Proof the Teahadists can’t read as well as being unable to think.
No, it is NOT the court’s call, unless and until someone brings it to a court.
Congress MUST decide what is and isn’t constitutional to pass laws. It can’t possibly function otherwise. All of its power comes from the Constitution, and every member is sworn to uphold it.
This simple requirement to state where the power for a bill comes from in the Constitution wouldn’t change the power of a court in any way, including the power to rule that its power goes beyond what was stated.
It doesn’t confuse the issue to simply state what people are assuming anyway.
Sure.
That wasn’t so hard. Maybe pointless, but not hard.
And hardly “extreme.”
But you don’t think they are extreme, do you?
OK, let’s make this nice and simple: You want to pass a law requiring Congress to state the Constitutional basis for each law they pass? Let’s start with that one. What’s the Constitutional basis for a law requiring Congress to state the Constitutional basis for all laws?
You have a seriuous penchant for picking really poor analogies.
Religions are not social clubs that can be joined or dropped at will. Most religious people have a belief system that is part of their lives. Claiming that people “choose” a religious belief is a remarkable demonstration of ignorance. There is a certain level of choice involved, to the extent that one’s beliefs need to resonate with one’s world view, but a claim that [believers of X] “choose” to be [believers of X] is just silly.
When I was nine, my grandmother swore to me that Davy Crockett was a Methodist. Good enough for me.
Well played.
Nope. It’s a PERFECT analogy. The claim was that if you associate with a group, you’re responsible for what others in it do.
And for some people, political affiliation is as important, or more important, than religion.
No it’s not. You are completely free to leave your religion at any time for any reason. If your religion has been hijacked by those who support terrorism or violence or hatred, you are supporting terrorism and violence and hatred if you continue to associate with it, according to the logic.
What you don’t get is that your point supports my argument - it would be silly to tell someone that they should just leave their religion because somebody else who is a member of that religion did something wrong. You wouldn’t presume to say such a thing, because you know religion is about much more than just affiliating with other people. Same goes for a political party.
I’ll bet you could find a grandmother out there who would say Jesus was a Methodist.
“Fanaticism can be described as redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”
- George Santayana.
That is awesome. What a great quote.
It’s not silly. Not when you are supporting the people doing the “wrong things” by participating in that religion. And especially not when they are doing those “wrong things” because that’s exactly what the religion demands that they do.
And unanswered.
I found a fervent Baptist who swore they had the one true church of Jesus, and all others had fallen for snares of Satan.
All other Baptist sects, that is. Methodists and other low creatures weren’t worth mentioning.
- Blazing Saddles (1974)
As for the TP and the more conservatives going extreme, confirmation of that comes from the recent change of course Bohener had to take regarding his recent ideas on taking on immigration reform this year, not so fast said the TP and other extremists, and so the double down continues even if it means that Hispanics will go the same way as the African Americans.
Reminds me of this exchange:
Wow. The Wall Street Journal editorial page says the Republicans are being too partisan. The End Times must be near.