What is congress not legally responsible for?
103692
mmm...., im gonna hafta say A. no,C...yeh its C.  or D i guess...is it B? if only there were a E 'sll ov the above'.
541805
You do realize that it is Congress who has to pass the right to go to war right? I mean all the president is, is the congresses scape goat you should really do some studing before pointing fingers.
179886
The Constitution gives congress the power to make laws. States can also pass laws specific to there jurisdiction as long as the state law does not violate federal law. In cases where there is no federal law, states are free to come up with their own. An example that has had a lot of attention in recent years is the legalization of marijuana. Some states have past laws to make it legal but the federal government still says its a crime to possess it. If you live in a state where marijuana has been legalized, the federal government could still arrest you for violating federal law.
945625
It's not a Congressional issue. Congress is limited in the types of laws they can pass, based on the enumerated powers doctring. Marriage is not within the scope of Congressional authority. Which means it is a state issue.\n\nThe only way that Congress could legally get involved is pass a Constituional Amendment, one way or the other, and that's not likely to succeed in either direction becuase of the current split on the issue.
775954
It has not cleared congress yet.
53692
Actually, the whole thing happens in congress -- the justice department is not involved.\n\nThe house votes for articles of impeachment, then the senate tries.\n\nIf you feel strongly enough about it, contact your house member and let them know.\n\nFrankly, your best bet is to wait it out.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
677007
I am a 3rd year law student and the answer is pretty much "yes". After a long line of cases after the Burger Court, the Court has been very deferential to allowing Congress to regulate activities "affecting, involved in or substantially affecting" interstate commerce. There are certain situations where it would be blantatly out of Congress's power to regulate (like something purely intrastate) but for the most part, Congress can regulate about any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.
75090
Congress is the only branch of government that can actually make laws regarding immigration and naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Subsection 4.\n\nHowever, the Supreme Court can determine that the law they pass is unconstitutional and toss it or determine to grant certain rights to non-citizens.  The Exectuive Branch can recommend rules, or decide not to enforce one if they don't like it.  The states can pass laws granting rights and privledges to illegals or other non-citizens.\n\nBut to the specific question, it is Congress and Congress alone that holds that power under the Constitution.
619396
The Senate is illegal.
1106370
Judges don't make law. The people in Congress make the law.
621592
It isn't illegal. The Constitution specifically says the people have the right to assemble and to petition their government for grievances. There is more to it than just the right to sell machine guns to toddlers, you know?\n\nBesides, it is up to the individual Congressman to decide if he is going to listen or not. Remember all the ruckus about the Lobbyists? After a lot of hand-wringing, the Congress has decided they are just going to quietly give the Lobbyists even more access to power. Just because people are angry doesn't mean that anyone in Congress cares about their feelings or their grievances.
657354
Yes.  They have stopped members of Congress from flying because they were on the "No Fly" list.  If you're on it, check the consulate in your area.
787892
There are relatively few in the constitution, excluding the bill of rights, because the constitution is largely a government-organizing document, including power sharing among the three branches. (One of the reasons that the Antifederalists objected to the Constitution as written was that it did not include many specific restrictions on governmental authority, but rather which branch could do what.)\n\nThere are some restrictions.\nFor instance, Congress has only the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.  If a law does not fall within those powers, then Congress cannot enact it.\nThere are also Congressional actions which are expressly forbidden: (Article 1 Section 9) such as\n(a) No bills of attainder or ex post facto laws\n(b) No suspension of habeas corpus unless in times of invasion or rebellion\n(c) Public monies may not be spent except by appropriation and accounting by Congress\n(d) no import taxes or duties on interstate transportation.\n\nThere are also a few other "rights" -- such as the "republican form of government" clause in Article IV -- which guarantees that each state will have a republican form of government (i.e. electing representatives) and In Article III section 2 -- which guarantees a trial by jury for the trial of "all crimes."\n\nFor a complete list, simply read the Constitution without the amendments:\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/const.htm
281803
Congress is bicameral. There is the House of Representatives and the Senate.
967173
Wire tapping the telephones of American citizens without a court order is illegal.\nThey impeached Clinton for a minor dalliance in which he didn't even get to third base. But taking the Constitution and pushing it through the shredder, why that is just fine and dandy.\nHe really does believe that it is only a piece of paper, and he is the Prince of the Realm who may do as he pleases, isn't he? \nThe answer to Ben Franklin's comment about what sort of government the constitution enshrined--"A republic, if you can keep it"-- has been answered. We've lost it, folks. We've got George III in the White House. And, it is now often forgotten, that George was looney as the day is long, too.
877547
It's a lame duck because it doesn't have any popular authority left. Since most of it's members have been voted out of power, it cannot claim the mandate necessary to enact broad, sweeping legislation. It must only muddle along till the newly elected congress comes about.