A Proposal to Limits Congress' Power
- Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
|
Posted August 20, 2006
- Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
- This amendment will take effect in the first Congress after ratification.
I am proposing a very simple amendment to the U.S Constitution, one which I feel would limit the power of the federal government. I’m sure the language would need to be cleaned up by a few lawyers. This is an idea I lifted directly from the Constitution of the Confederate States. I took the language directly from Section 9 Article 20 (cut and paste is wonderful). The amendment’s goal is to limit the power of the House and the Senate to pass laws covering many topics. Right now congress is able to tack on amendments to any bill covering any topic.
The ability to expand a bill beyond its original intent is commonly used as a means to extend support for an unpopular bill. The House recently passed a minimum wage bill where the Democrats were the party opposed to the passage of the bill. What caused this change of hearts by the Democrats—after all they are the “populace” party? The Republicans attached an amendment regarding the estate tax to the bill. I know many Libertarians are against both the minimum wage and the estate tax. The point of the proposed amendment would limit the ability of Congress to wheel and deal to pass laws. By preventing the ability to expand bills Congress would have to vote on each issue on its on merit. I’m sure neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would relish such a prospect.
This amendment would not be a perfect solution to the federal government’s abuse of power. I’m sure titles could be made broad enough to cover many topics. Vote swapping will still go on. But it would curtail the gravest abuses. It is also a difficult idea to oppose. The best argument against it is how it would make passing laws more difficult and deadlock would reign. But, if an idea is not able to stand up on its own, does it need to be a law?
10 Comments
Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page
|
|
