Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.
Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."
Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!
By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Call me "Mr. Nobody"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, as an answer to the direct question of where the Constitution gives Congress gives the authority to do something, this answer does fail.
But seriously, what is he supposed to say? He's not going to admit that this is completely unconstitutional, and the Constitution is a pretty short document to supply a handy quote for that situation. The vast majority of the Federal government doesn't pass muster if you apply the standard of what the Constitution allows. From a strict reading of the Constitution, you can't have career officers in the Army or weapons development programs outside of the Navy.
Just an aside, and this is totally not an interservice thing, but I don't like the Navy. Marines, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy is my rankings for service branches. But if we're talking about the Constitution virtually all Defense spending has to go through the Navy. But anyone from any other service branch who catches a Navy guy saying that is allowed to punch him in the face (if a woman says it you're out of luck, though). Okay, that's not in the Constitution, but insofar as Congress does have power to make that kind of rule, they should.
I mean, it's not "why would I read the bills before voting on them?" or the all-new "why even have anything committed to paper before we vote on it?"
I mean...that's very nearly a literal blank check...except that it's actually a blank bill which has never even been imagined in the history of law. No legislative body can do something like that and even pretend to be legitimate anymore. That's not "okay, write something and we'll rubber-stamp it for you." They're putting the imprimatur of Congress on a blank ream of paper and handing it over to a bunch of avowed commies.
And they aren't even kidding!
Verification Code, "impolyt"
Chiu, it's a pretty good point. But if a public "leader" can't even concoct (or otherwise revert to) a decent yarn about how the constitution authorizes this and that, ... I'm not real sure what value s/he is to anyone. ...
Eh, helping to make the point that the current government is completely unconstitutional is not without value. I realize that most people want to avoid admitting that just as much as they want to avoid admitting that printing money and going further into debt isn't going to fix the economy. Given the implications of either admission, let alone the horrific possibilities of both combined, it's not really surprising that most people would rather not think about it.
There are plenty of things that are horrid enough that I'd rather not think about them. But I lack the ability to not think about things that reason tell me are probable (including the possibility that reason is invalid, it's really annoying but you can't think rationally without keeping that in mind).
I'm not sure how most people are able to manage not thinking about unpleasant probabilities...but given observed results it seems many of them accomplish it by not thinking at all. A neat solution, but I'll pass. Thinking is one of my favorite activities, after all. Even when it's about unpleasant things.
Post a Comment