Court Arguments in Congressional Legislation?

HR-1 2019’s first “change things as fast as possible” bill is working its way through the legislative process – or Congress would like you to believe.  If the House truly honored the “legislative process” this bill would be ripped to pieces.  It’s not legislation at all.  Here are my comments regarding just one small part of this “Legislation?”


Scott –

I’ve been reviewing 2019 H.R. 1 that is so misleadingly titled “For the People Act of 2019.”

Is this indicative of the type of so-called “legislation” we can expect in our newest Democrat-controlled House?  While being concerned about many, many parts of this shotgun approach to change, I’ll cover just one concern in this letter:  SEC.  5001. FINDINGS RELATING TO CITIZENS UNITED DECISION.  This Section can be found on page 366 (of the 570 pages.)

I’m hoping you or your staff can explain to me how (or more importantly, why) legislation such as this is used to present an entire argument (almost 1200 of the 108,000 words) against a list of Supreme Court decisions.  I can understand a partisan movement against decisions levied by the Supreme Court not in favor with party desire, but am I wrong assuming the venue for arguing a case is not in House legislation?  It makes me wonder who the legislators are trying to convince – their constituents, the courts or themselves.  To what purpose does this long, amateurish legal argument serve within legislation?

And the legal arguments presented are so definitive – using long established legal terms like, “…tidal waves of unlimited and anonymous spending.”[1]  Just how much spending is that?

And then comes a self-descriptive legislative reaction like, “The Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution to empower monied interests at the expense of the American people in elections has seriously eroded over 100 years of congressional action to promote fairness and protect elections from the toxic influence of money.”[2]

Am I to believe the Supreme Court has run off “misinterpreting” the Constitution – again?  But wait, isn’t interpreting the Constitution the primary job of the Supreme Court?  And our Congress using another legally explicit phrase to express how hard it (the Congress) has worked to avoid, “…the toxic influence of money.” has to be hilarious in the face of our $22,000,000,000,000 national debt.  Who spent all that money – no “…toxic influence…” there?

This is just one small item!  There is so much more in H.R.1 that needs review and clarification.

Your thoughts?  We’re watching.

Tom Howe – Flying W Ranch – Hotchkiss, Colorado

CC:     Rep. Diana DeGette  202-225-5657

Rep. Joe Neguse      No Fax – staff email

Rep. Ken Buck                   202-225-5870

Rep. Doug Lamborn  202-225-1942

Rep. Jason Crow      No Fax ?? email blog ref.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter    202-225-5278



[1] 2019 HR1, Page 367, lines 8 & 9

[2] Ibid – lines 19 to 24



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.