Congressman: I Don’t Worry About the Constitution (VIDEO)

By Thursday April 1, 2010

The state of modern American politics:

[Via Jack Liberty]



37 Comments
  1. Walter Bishop says:
    4/2/2010 at 4:52 am

    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.

    Reply
  2. FRAGaLOT says:
    4/2/2010 at 5:03 am

    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.

    Reply
  3. zhopa says:
    4/2/2010 at 5:15 am

    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..

    Reply
  4. Sea Lawyer says:
    4/2/2010 at 5:33 am

    #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.

    Reply
  5. Me says:
    4/2/2010 at 5:43 am

    aartimus & bobbo – Are you saying that everyone is now drafted into the militia? Those in the militia were required to provide their own arms.

    Reply
  6. Benjamin says:
    4/2/2010 at 5:57 am

    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?””

    Reply
  7. bac says:
    4/2/2010 at 6:14 am

    #- 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.

    Reply
  8. George says:
    4/2/2010 at 6:29 am

    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

    Reply
  9. strukhoff says:
    4/2/2010 at 6:33 am

    I agree this was a very misleading head and below any standards one would wish for this website. The congressman was saying he doesn’t care about the constitution “on this issue.” The “I don’t care” is a simple figure of speech that we Midwesterners use all the time as a polite, non-confrontational way to say STFU and listen to me. It was not meant as a statement that the guy was pissing on the Constitution. Context, people, context! Even though the congressman didn’t exactly come across intellectually as Pat Moynihan or Ev Dirksen here, I would be far more troubled if the obnoxious asshole with the camera were to be in Congress. He is clearly a true believer, and I just don’t trust people who believe they are 100 percent right 100 percent of the time, and who don’t listen–Democrat, Republican, or National Bocialist.

    Reply
  10. brm says:
    4/2/2010 at 7:03 am

    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.

    Reply
  11. jman says:
    4/2/2010 at 10:02 am

    and car insurance is not mandatory because you can choose to not own a car…..idiots

    Reply
  12. bobbo, we think with words says:
    4/2/2010 at 11:10 am

    #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.

    Reply
  13. denacron says:
    4/2/2010 at 12:46 pm

    On the one hand you have a congressman who does not have an island that goes all the way to the bottom. On the other a former senator with clogged tubes. Why should anyone demand this one be concerned with the constitution?

    Hopefully his suv made it safely to the all-u-can-eat buffet. Maybe he can meet his Republican counterpart in the can.

    I ask my fellow Americans to vote the incumbents out. Lets see some real change. (I know I know, pigs will fly first.)

    Reply
  14. Canucklehead says:
    4/2/2010 at 3:15 pm

    what a heartless bastard. He cares more about people dying than a piece of paper.

    Reply
  15. Sea Lawyer says:
    4/2/2010 at 3:16 pm

    From Title 10 USC:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Reply
  16. zhopa says:
    4/2/2010 at 4:53 pm

    24,28,30,31 etc. Does it really make any practical difference which particular government has a law that makes you uncomfortable? There isn’t a state that will let you drive uninsured and for the large majority of people in the U.S. not owning a car is *not* an option. There simply isn’t enough public transport coverage to survive, unless you happen to be a city dweller.

    If you don’t like health insurance you have an option of not paying – this will not make you a felon.

    you will not die either because hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment just because you are poor or don’t have an insurance.

    This is actually a much better social program than let’s say the Social Security. Here you can pick a private provider and fine tune your policy. With SS you are forced into a government trust with zero investment choices. So thank god they have not turned this into a fixed healthcare federal tax.

    Reply
  17. Animby says:
    4/2/2010 at 6:50 pm

    Personally, I think the “general welfare” of the US is served by assuring food and drug safety, sufficient transportation, adequate borders, etc. Health insurance is very specific – i.e. not general. I think they may have stretched the provisions of the commerce clause too far this time. Be interesting what the SC says about it after Obama dissed ‘e m so badly at the State of the UNion address.

    #16 aartimus: Good catch. Thanks for that. Maybe SeaLawyer or someone with some legal training can tell us what has happened with the Militia act. It’s obviously no longer in effect as the IRS hasn’t insisted I go out and buy a gun recently. Actually, the Act did not require anyone to BUY a weapon. It only instructed them to PROVIDE themselves a weapon. A father might give or loan the son a weapon.

    And, on the face of it, it is unconstitutional since it affects only a subset of the population (i,e, young, white males) thus discriminating against females, people of color and the aged. Also, and very importantly, the 1792 Militia Act only affected those men who had been notified of their being enrolled into a militia – i.e. drafted (“…every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket…”) and the Militia Act had one other caveat that sort of changes the tone: “That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe…”

    But it still is a precedent, though a weak one. Things will get interesting when the Supremes get to hear these points.

    As for those of you above who do not understand the difference between Federally mandated health insurance just to be a citizen of the USA and state-mandated car insurance to protect people you might injure while exercising the privilege of driving a car, go back to bed and maybe your mother will bring you some warm Bosco. Driving a car is not a right, evidence – you must be licensed to do it legally.

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24220 access attempts in the last 7 days.