The Handy Law Answer Book. David L Hudson
Читать онлайн книгу.
for signing. If the president signs the bill, it becomes law. If the president refuses to sign the bill into law, he exercises his veto power. If the president vetoes the bill, then Congress can override the presidential veto by passing the measure with a two-thirds majority.
What happens after a bill is introduced?
After a member of Congress introduces a bill, the measure is often referred to a committee. The committee then will discuss the measure in a mark-up session. Many bills never make it out of the committee. The common saying is that the measure died in committee. However, if the bill makes it out of committee, it can reach the full House for an official vote.
Committees are often formed by Congress in order to study the merits of a bill before it goes up for a vote (iStock).
What are the various House Committees?
The House Committees include:
Committee on Agriculture
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Financial Services
Committee on Foreign Relations
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on House Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Rules
Committee on Science and Technology
Committee on Small Business
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Committee on Ways and Means
Joint Economic Committee
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Celebrations
Joint Committee on Taxation
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
What are public hearings?
If a bill is considered important enough, then the committee may hold a public hearing on the measure. The committee will hear testimony from experts who have specialized knowledge in the subject matter addressed in the bill.
What are some other powers of Congress mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Article I, Section 8 lists numerous powers of Congress. Among these powers, the Congress can:
Set and collect taxes.
Regulate commerce between the various states and with foreign nations, to coin money.
Declare war.
Provide and maintain a navy.
Raise and support armies.
Create post offices.
Create courts lower than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcy.
Why is the Commerce Clause so important?
The Commerce Clause is so important because it might be Congress’ greatest control over what occurs in various states throughout the country. In other words, it is probably Congress’ greatest power. Congress’ ability to “regulate commerce” has proven to be a very important way in which the federal government regulates the states. Congress has used the power of the Commerce Clause, for example, to pass laws prohibiting racial discrimination in local restaurants, such as in the famous decision in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964; see LegalSpeak, p. 26). More recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v. Reich (2005; see LegalSpeak, p. 28) that Congress validly exercised its Commerce Clause powers when it passed the Controlled Substances Act, which criminalized marijuana even in those states that had allowed medicinal uses of marijuana.
One of the powers of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce (iStock).
What are the categories of Congress’ powers in regulating interstate commerce?
There are four major sources of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause:
1 Regulate the channels of commerce.
2 Regulate the instrumentalities of commerce.
3 Regulate articles moving in commerce.
4 Regulate those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
What does the Constitution say about ex post facto laws?
Article I, Section 10 prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, which essentially are laws that have a retroactive and detrimental impact on individuals. Ex post facto laws are those which make conduct a crime even if the conduct was legal when originally committed. The U.S. Supreme Court explained the types of ex post facto laws in Calder v. Bull (1798):
I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive.
LegalSpeak: Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
Moreover there was an impressive array of testimony that discrimination in restaurants had a direct and highly restrictive effect upon interstate travel by Negroes. This resulted, it was said, because discriminatory practices prevent Negroes from buying prepared food served on the premises while on a trip, except in isolated and unkempt restaurants and under most unsatisfactory and often unpleasant conditions. This obviously discourages travel and obstructs interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating. Likewise, it was said, that discrimination deterred professional, as well as skilled, people from moving into areas where such practices occurred and thereby caused industry to be reluctant to establish there.
We believe that this testimony afforded ample basis for the conclusion that established restaurants in such areas sold less interstate goods because of the discrimination, that interstate travel was obstructed directly by it, that business in general suffered and that many new businesses refrained from establishing there as a result of it. Hence the District Court was in error in concluding that there was no connection between discrimination and the movement