Post by rosa on Oct 23, 2009 7:59:47 GMT -7
Representative Paul Broun (GA) has proposed that the Constitution be amended with this:
"Adds a new section at the end of the bill
stating that "[n]one of the funds made
available under this Act or the
amendments made by the Act" (1) may be
used for lobbying the legislative or
executive branches of the Federal, State,
or local governments; or (2) may be
awarded to any entity if that entity or any
employee has been charged by a
government agency with waste, fraud,
abuse of government funds, or any illegal
activities."
So, the resulting debate takes place between Representative Alan Grayson (Fla) and Broun:
interesting debate on whether our reps know what's in the constitution and how it's applied, incl. rulings from the supremes
granted ACORN is the obvious target here, but think of how many other organizations/individuals would be adversely affected
simply by the language per the proposed change...all you need is an accusation of fraud....
So, Grayson asks: "What does the constitution say about bills of attainder?"
...Broun wants to direct focus on outcome, not the process itself....he states this is not a bill of attainder and keeps trying to direct it to "the determination of the court"
but this has already been decided by the Constitution and by the supremes...
Grayson quotes Renquist:
"You cannot single out one or more persons without the benefit of trial"
Then, he quotes Madison from The Federalist Papers:
"...and contrary to every principle of sound legislation", which Broun agrees to.....
Broun follows with: "Bills of attainder are unconstitutional".
From Grayson: "Would the gentleman....agree... that the bill of attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision but as an implementation of separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature....?"
Broun asks for help from counsel and says he won't agree to this...
Grayson then says that what Broun said he wouldn't agree to "....is from a Supreme Court case called United States v Brown"
Does this level of debate even happen on the floor in Texas-in either house, I wonder?
"Adds a new section at the end of the bill
stating that "[n]one of the funds made
available under this Act or the
amendments made by the Act" (1) may be
used for lobbying the legislative or
executive branches of the Federal, State,
or local governments; or (2) may be
awarded to any entity if that entity or any
employee has been charged by a
government agency with waste, fraud,
abuse of government funds, or any illegal
activities."
So, the resulting debate takes place between Representative Alan Grayson (Fla) and Broun:
interesting debate on whether our reps know what's in the constitution and how it's applied, incl. rulings from the supremes
granted ACORN is the obvious target here, but think of how many other organizations/individuals would be adversely affected
simply by the language per the proposed change...all you need is an accusation of fraud....
So, Grayson asks: "What does the constitution say about bills of attainder?"
...Broun wants to direct focus on outcome, not the process itself....he states this is not a bill of attainder and keeps trying to direct it to "the determination of the court"
but this has already been decided by the Constitution and by the supremes...
Grayson quotes Renquist:
"You cannot single out one or more persons without the benefit of trial"
Then, he quotes Madison from The Federalist Papers:
"...and contrary to every principle of sound legislation", which Broun agrees to.....
Broun follows with: "Bills of attainder are unconstitutional".
From Grayson: "Would the gentleman....agree... that the bill of attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision but as an implementation of separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature....?"
Broun asks for help from counsel and says he won't agree to this...
Grayson then says that what Broun said he wouldn't agree to "....is from a Supreme Court case called United States v Brown"
Does this level of debate even happen on the floor in Texas-in either house, I wonder?