Read The Bill Before Voting, Congress!

One good thing about all those AIG bonuses that caused such a major stir earlier this year was that it highlighted the fact the most (if not all) members of Congress don't even read the bills they are voting on.

In the Stimulus package was an amendment (known as the Dodd Amendment) that allowed the AIG bonuses to be specifically exempted from any regulation. When Barack Obama put the presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Later, when the AIG bonuses became public, many of those who vote "Yea" on this measure became indignant that such bonuses would be paid out by a firm that took bailout money.

So, if those people had simply read the bill, or at least demanded a chance to see what was being inserted into the bill at 4:00 a.m., they would have known what they were voting for and wouldn't have ended up looking like the fools they are. Well, that's my theory anyway.

Now, with socialized health care on the horizon, it is once again looking like the Dem leadership is going to force a vote before the legislation can be thoroughly read and understood by those voting on it.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what's in it. Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,' " he said last week at the National Press Club. "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?"

The good, Mr. Conyers, is that Senators and Representatives will know exactly what they are voting for if they happen to be voting "Yea." Knowing what is in legislation will save Congress from being embarrassed (as in the above AIG example) and save the American people for having to admit that their Congress is a remake of the Keystone Kops.

More:

Mr. Conyers might think it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents. That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded. The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word "shall" 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word "penalty" is used 156 times for those who don't follow orders. "Tax" is referred to 172 times.

This legislation is so sweeping and so draconian that if it fails to produce as advertised (and I am betting it will spectacularly fail to do so), members of Congress who voted "Yea" are going to run and hide behind the tired and lame excuse that they "didn't know what was in the bill."

It happened with the AIG bonuses. It will happen with the socialized medicine bill.

You can access the original editorial on-line here:

Read The Bill, Congressmen
Washington Times
July 29, 2009

Response From Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District)

A couple of weeks ago, I called on Frank Wolf (R-VA) to resign his seat for violating the Constitution by voting "Yea" on HR 1586. For a refresher on that story, visit the following link:

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) To Resign
84rules
March 20, 2009

My argument is that by voting for legislation that essentially amounts to both a Bill of Attainder and an Ex Post Facto law, Rep. Wolf violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and must be held accountable for it. I sent Mr. Wolf a letter voicing my concerns and asking that he step down. I further made it known that my concerns were over the Constitutional issues, not the bonuses.

I got a response through the mail yesterday. A hard copy letter signed by Mr. Wolf. Here are two excerpts from that letter:

By a vote of 328-93 on March 19, the House passed the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose a new 90 percent tax on the bonuses paid after December 31, 2008, to employees of companies that recieved over $5 billion in taxpayer money.

Here, Mr. Wolf freely admits that HR 1586 qualifies as a Bill of Attainder, which is defined as any legislation that will pose negative effects on a narrowly defined group of people. Mr. Wolf himself defines that group. Further, Mr. Wolf noted that the date of the legislation in question was March 19, 2009 and that it would be retroactively enforced back to December 31, 2008. That qualifies this bill as an Ex Post Facto law.

So, why did he do it? Here is what he wrote:

While I had concerns about the rushed nature of the legislation and some of the legal and constitutional issues raised, I voted for the bill. I reached that decision because of the message that AIG's payment of bonuses was sending hard-working Americans whose tax money was being used to bail out the company.

That's it. Frank Wolf voted to trample on Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States in order to "send a message." He had no concern whatsoever that what he was doing violated the Constitution.

What's next? Will Mr. Wolf vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to "send a message" to violent criminals? Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to allow duties or taxes on exports from a certain state in order to "send a message" to the people of that state. Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to impose taxes on a specific religious denomination in order to "send a message" to the members of that religion.

Mr. Wolf's actions regarding HR 1586 are inexcusable. His excuse for taking those actions is intolerable.

Anyone who would violate a certain part of our Constitution will be capable of violating other parts of the Constiotution. Such a person is not to be trusted.

I repeat my earlier call for Mr. Wolf's removal. I would rather deal with an honest Democrat than a disgraceful Republican. I have already decided that I will not support Frank Wolf for re-election in 2010.

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th District) To Resign. Otherwise, We Should Recall Him.

Frank Wolf (R-VA) is usually a stalwart Congressman who fights hard for the 10th District. But, his vote of "Yea" on HR 1586, the retroactive taxing of bonuses paid to AIG, shows that he is no longer worthy of our trust or respect.

Here's why he needs to go:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees. Frank Wolf voted "Yea."

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. “No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.” You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. It is not the bonuses that matter here. It is the fact that Mr. Wolf voted to allow Congress a power that it never had before and should absolutely never, ever have at all.

I have already written Mr. Wolf asking him to resign. I highly recommend that other residents of Virginia's 10th District do likewise.

Within the next few days, we residents of the 10th District need to get together and begin a recall campaign.

If Mr. Wolf is willing to violate this part of the Constitution, then he is willing to violate other parts of the Constitution as well. The 10th District deserves much better representation than that.

We need to come together and demand that Mr. Wolf step down before he votes to do even more damage to the Constitution's integrity.