Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) held a conference call with bloggers this afternoon on S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, and we had an opportunity to ask about our favorite topic of the last day or so — the constitutionality of the legislation given the fact that revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives.
Sen. Inhofe responded…
If we were to talk about how many things we consider that constitutionality would should not be considering up here, this would be a very long show. If you challenge the constitutionality of it, then they get an opinion, then they put it out for a vote to sustain the opinion of the parliamentarian and we’d lose every time.
I’m not saying it’s right, it’s wrong, but there are a lot of things I would say are not constitutional.
They would say on this bill, by the way, that this is not directly appropriating these things, so they can say it’s not a spending bill. They would come up with a parliamentary reason to say that it doesn’t apply.
Well, of course we knew that was the answer, that it was a matter of the majority being the majority and constitutionality not being much of a concern in Congress. Still irksome.
You can listen to Sen. Inhofe’s comments in an .mp3 file at inhofe-on-constitution1.
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011