This bill really appears to be just window dressing. It doesn't really do anything. So lawmakers have to slap a quote from the Constitution at the top of their bill like some kind of legal disclaimer. I don't see it answering any of the potential reasons for its being.
If the goal is to force lawmakers to justify their codification, it doesn't serve the role. They can just pick the passage of choice and slap it on to cover the technical rule. So its just added text with no benefit.
If the goal is to provide a shield for laws from constitutional challenges, it won't work either. The Supreme Court doesn't care what the House puts on the bill as the supposed justification, they are still going to review a law with the same process they always have. It is the Judicial Branch's obligation to judge constitionality, not the Legislative.
So what purpose does this serve besides making it look like they are trying to be more considerate of the Constitution? In fact I see it as dangerous in the opposite way because it can make a bill seem more Constitutionally justified than it really is.
Josh
|