The state of modern American politics:
[Via Jack Liberty]
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Someone, anyone, please answer me this: If the the federal government can order me to buy something from a private company, what is it NOT allowed to order me to buy? Anyone…?
Truth in government. Refreshing, I guess.
First thing. Don’t lie. Second thing. Don’t talk to idiots with video cameras.
Sad to see this on a good website. I understand the congressman’s words. He cares and the ahole with the video does not care. Looks cut and dry to me.
What he should have said is “There where Constitutional questions regarding Social Security, and Medicare and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the programs. I am confident that the current legislation will receive similar treatment.”
If he cares so much, he must give a considerable amount of his annual income to charity. Right?
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
that should cover it.
Of course the idiot with the camcorder shouldn’t doubt that a congressman read the 1000+ page bill, until he can read a four page document.
Another thing that fracktard, treasonous bastards like this like to toss around: When they try to pass unconstitutional bills and asked where the Constitution gives them the right to pass it, they respond with “Where does it explicitly say I can’t?”
Kinda sad to see this on the blog JCD. I think it’s pretty clear to anyone watching watch the Congressman was getting at. This is just an example of some dolt taking one sound-byte out of context. I’m not saying I agree with the congressman at all but I can certainly understand his frustration with these idiots.
If the antagonist wouldn’t have swarmed on the politician and just allowed him to hang himself, calling out his cheap emotional theatrics the whole way, this would be “jackpot” material but, in typical fashion, these guy get their opponent cornered and all they can do is drool on him.
Nicely worded #9
I thank you are right on.
Unfortunately this shows the current state of political discourse in America. Now the phrases “you’re a liar”, “everybody says that” and “show me where it says that in the constitution” are considered intelligent political arguments. It is so much easier to call names than to actually think about, understand and talk about different different points of view.
Thankfully our founding fathers, who had serious political and philosophical disagreements, talked about complex issues, found ways to compromise and reached agreements to resolve those issues. If they hadn’t debated the contents of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in a responsible, adult way, we would be singing Hail Britannia to Queen Elizabeth today.
So much for 230 years of progress.
I disagree with what Congressman Hare said, but I deeply appreciate his willingness to sit there and get hammered. Few people in Congress will sit there and debate one-on-one with constituents. Cheers to Hare.
If this guy was a Republican, there would be 50 comments by now with the usual gang of loud-mouth liberals ripping this him to pieces and declaring that all Republicans are like him…
Given the Header, I was all set to dislike this guy===but I got a positive vibe from the guy. He should take a “how to handle the press” course though for his own survival, and maybe even for his own peace of mind.
I am following with interest the issue of the Constitutionality of the HR (HealthCare Reform). The commerce clause is (incorrectly I think) interpreted to give unlimited power to the Feds but historically, I can’t think of another time they have required private people to purchase good and services from other private people. The Feds could formulate a tax policy that could have all the same effects, but arguably, not this way. Important Constitutional Issues are raised. Unfortunately, they will never be brought to light if only the question is “Where does it say in the Constitution……” The important analysis for ANY constitutional question is: “What is the applicable case law?”
My favorite example===nondiscrimination against blacks was achieved by applying the Commerce Clause==not any other provision of the Constitution.
Or maybe not with the current activist court. A strict constructionist could go either way on the question. “You Know”–the Constitution hardly says “anything” when you limit yourself to that document alone===unless you do ((sorry to repeat myself)) understand the Commerce Clause means “everything you can think of.”
#15 How about the time President Washington signed the Militia Act requiring that all “free able-bodied white male citizen” purchase a “good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.”
#16–aartimus==thank you. I learn something new every once in a while. I could quibble, but it looks like firm precedent is in place for the gov to require private purchasing. I wonder if the SC ever ruled on the Militia Act==or if statutes for National Defense are different than statutes for the general well being?
Of other interest, I wonder how this plays into the Second Amendment? If every male citizen is REQUIRED to buy a gun IN ORDER TO serve in the militia, seems to me the Second Amendment is redundant?
I love history–especially when it bites me in the ass.
#7:
Yeah, but the Congressman quoted the Declaration of Independence and said it was from the Constitution.
But jesus christ, why is it that “common defence and general welfare of the United States” is always sooo clearly understood to mean “welfare check” by the very same people who think that “right to keep and bear arms” must mean something totally different from “guns should be legal.”
I can’t believe the comments I see on this page….it’s a wonder some of you are smart enough to remember to breathe without a govt agent there to hold your hand…damn this country is in trouble
The vast majority of the Federal Code is authorized under the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution.
Which does not mean I think it is constitutional to require Americans to buy insurance. But I’ve been buying auto insurance for decades whether I wanted to or not.
The video is pretty lame too. Seizing on one phrase the congressman said is more “I gotcha” than indictment of the guy.
This post is a bit misleading. This is a healthcare reform issue that this politician was talking about. The douchebag with the camera twisted it into a constitutional debate, which is completely irrelevant. Which is why he said “He doesn’t worry about the constitution.” since it has nothing to do with it.
The constitution doesn’t grant you healthcare, nor does it deny you healthcare. I have to agree with #11 point that, using the Constitution as an end-all argument point (for any side of an argument) is ridiculous.
It does state “the right to *life,* liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but it implies you get it your self. “The Right To..” vs. simply “The right of…” The government isn’t obliged to make you live (nor die), nor make you happy, but liberty has been long gone.
Otherwise taxes would pay for hookers and blow for everyone.. not just the politicians and law makers.
The government already requires to buy a car insurance (which includes medical) and there are severe penalties for driving uninsured. One can argue that this is unconstitutional. Why nobody complains about it?
If your accident record is so bad that you can’t obtain a private insurance the government will be glad to cover you (for a very high premium).
now take the car/driving out of the picture, but leave the insurance requirement and you got the healthcare bill. I doubt it can be so easily declared unconstitutional..
#5, many of the New Deal programs were thrown out by the Supreme Court at the time. Social Security was permitted, not because of some power the court found in the Constitution to create a social pension system, but because of the power granted to Congress to tax and spend.
If the argument is that the government has the power to create a healthcare system, then it will lose; but if it argues that it can tax people and then spend it on giving healthcare services, then it will likely win based on previous precident. It’s a cheap way of getting around limits of power, but the courts have created the situation – and politicians are more than eager to exploit it.
#23, “The government already requires to buy a car insurance …”
What state governments are allowed to do, and what the federal government is allowed are two different things entirely.
aartimus & bobbo – Are you saying that everyone is now drafted into the militia? Those in the militia were required to provide their own arms.
The Tenth Amendment says he can’t unless it is specifically forbidden elsewhere such as ex post facto laws (although that part of the Constitution has been used as toilet paper.)
TooManyPuppies said, on April 1st, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“Another thing that fracktard, treasonous bastards like this like to toss around: When they try to pass unconstitutional bills and asked where the Constitution gives them the right to pass it, they respond with “Where does it explicitly say I can’t?””
#- TooManyPuppies — “Where does it explicitly say I can’t? I know a president that was thinking this when he allowed massive wiretaps and started two wars.
I guess it all depends on which side of the coin you are on.
Hey, zhopa.
First there is no federal law that you have to drive, own a car, or buy liability insurance. The state may require liability insurance, but you don’t need it if you don’t drive, or if you keep your car off of the public roads.
Additionally, you are not required to buy collision or theft insurance, only some minimal amount of liability so the other person you injure can be compensated. You aren’t required to buy insurance to take care of your own injuries or losses!
If you don’t want to buy a liability policy, you can take a bus, cab, or ride a bike. Likewise, if you don’t want to go to a doctor for healthcare, why should you be forced to buy insurance? I can take care of myself, thank you. I don’t need governments help.
Speaking of idiot congressmen, how about this mental midget Democrat from Georgia? I’m sure he voted for health care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFsn8ekyhw
Hey boneheads, car insurance is required by your state, not the federal gov’t.
And fine, so he was goaded into a Constitutional discussion.
That still doesn’t excuse him for not knowing the diff between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
For chrissakes the guy’s a Congressman.
and car insurance is not mandatory because you can choose to not own a car…..idiots
#25–me, no YOU===err, Post Number 25==I’m not saying that. The law is an oldie that I had not heard of before. I looked to see if it had been repealed and did not find that in 5 minutes. I also assumed but could not confirm in 5 minutes that the statute applied to more than people who were entitled to vote as I think at the time to vote you had to own land, but I’m not sure and don’t really care.
Point is, that statute regarding the need for a well armed militia that included everyone worth his salt arose in the same context as the Second Amendment. Very strong evidence to me the Second Amendment “really should be” read in the context of what is needed to have a militia===MEANING when you don’t need every mother’s son in the militia, then you don’t need every mother’s son to have a gun.
Seems rather straight forward to me.