nospam says:

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…?

KMFIX says:

First thing. Don’t lie. Second thing. Don’t talk to idiots with video cameras.

echeola says:

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.”

C0mdrData says:

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.

bsmith says:

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.

damontsar says:

Nicely worded #9

I thank you are right on.

Lou Minatti says:

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.

bobbo, we think with words says:

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.”

bobbo, we think with words says:

#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.

The Aberrant says:

You guys do know that the Constitution isn’t, and has never been interpreted to be, a list of Government powers right? The constitution is meant to *limit* Government power in specific ways, ie, states v. feds, bill of rights, etc.

Political, and more importantly *legal*, discourse has far more considerations than “What is in the Constitution”. (Quick example: Find me in the Constitution where it explicitly says that the Department of Justice can prosecute people for breaking the law, and yet I doubt anyone will question the DoJs existence from a Constitutional basis.) Public policy, foreign and humanitarian practice, all of these have value in such debate. To go up to someone and yell “Where in the Constitution does it say that?!” is both ignorant and futile.

That being said – poor, poor choice of words, which he was goaded into. Doesn’t prove he’s Antiamerican, or a Socialist. Just proves that American’s desire for yellow journalism will never be sated.