PDA

View Full Version : Another Hare-brained politician from Illinois


GaryG
04-03-2010, 06:34 PM
Was that the Constitution or Declaration of Independence? Doesn't matter....either one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/03/congressman-defends-constitution-comments-health-care/

illinoisbred
04-03-2010, 06:53 PM
They grow like corn here-without much between the ears.

boxcar
04-03-2010, 07:06 PM
It was truly a "gotcha moment". Sharp got hm really good. First, Hare said that if he knew the bill was unconstitutional, he would have never voted for it. But this is NOT the same as saying that he knew beforehand the bill was constitutional or would pass constitutional muster. (In other words, he doesn't know one way or the other!) It is no wonder, therefore, that he could not specifically point to where in the constitution, congress has the authority to mandate purchases by citizens. Another lying snake in the grass worthy to be tarred and feathered...

Boxcar

fast4522
04-03-2010, 07:10 PM
Pure filth embracing a Nazzi view while starting a fight for re-election for a big mouth. A few more like this road apple and the Supreme Court of this United States will have no choice but to deliver a crushing blow to this Administration.

NJ Stinks
04-03-2010, 09:48 PM
What a pathetically small story this is.

Hate radio must be all over it. :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage
04-03-2010, 10:26 PM
What a pathetically small story this is.

Hate radio must be all over it. :rolleyes:Right. Small story when it involves a guy with a (D) next to his name...big story when it involves any guy with the dreaded (R).

As Sarah likes to say....GOTCHA! (gotcha, as in, I understand now)

mostpost
04-03-2010, 11:27 PM
Tea partiers have difficulty understanding the subtleties of language. If Hare had said "I don't care about the Constitution" you might be able to argue he was being disrespectful. What he said was, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this" An obvious reference to the constitutionality of the health care bill. I was able to discern this before I listened to Hare's video.
Adam Sharp is of the opinion that anything not expressly mentioned in the Constitution is prohibited. That was not the intention of the framers. That is not how laws have been interpreted for 222 years.
There are two clauses which give Congress the authority to require purchase of health insurance. One is the Commerce clause which gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. This has always been interpreted very loosely to allow Congress to pass laws relating to all aspects of interstate commerce.
The second clause is the Necessary and Proper Clause. This gives Congress the power to pass laws which are necessary and proper to carryout their enumerated powers. One of these enumerated powers is to provide for the general welfare.

James Madison talked about the Necessary and Proper clause in Federalist paper #44:
. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "
Continuing, Madison wrote,
Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.

Then Madison listed four other ways in which the Copnvention might have dealt with this problem.
There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.
And proceeded to explain why none of them were as efficient as the Necessary and proper clause. If anyone wants to read that explanation you can look up federalist paper #44. I didn't think so.

The reason I point this out is COnservatives are always talking about "Original Intent" Madison was there and clearly his and the convention's "Original Intent" was not a government of clearly enumerated and extremely restricted powers, but rather a government which was flexible enough to respond to changing times.

PaceAdvantage
04-03-2010, 11:35 PM
Mostpost, how do you defend his follow-up?

"Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."How can you take this any other way than him not upholding the Constitution as he was elected and sworn to do?

He cares more about passing this health care bill than he does the Constitution. He just said that. In black & white in the quote I just typed in this reply.

WHAT I CARE MORE ABOUT (than the Constitution)....

Defend that.

ArlJim78
04-03-2010, 11:50 PM
All Republicans need to do this fall is run ads quoting various democrats since the healthbill passed, its like they've been liberated to let their freak flags fly.


"I'm not concerned about the constitution"
"Of course its socialism, that what people voted for in 2008"
"Of course it redistribution of wealth"
"It's sometimes hard to control the people"
"Rich people have way way too much money"

mostpost
04-04-2010, 12:27 AM
Mostpost, how do you defend his follow-up?

How can you take this any other way than him not upholding the Constitution as he was elected and sworn to do?

He cares more about passing this health care bill than he does the Constitution. He just said that. In black & white in the quote I just typed in this reply.

WHAT I CARE MORE ABOUT (than the Constitution)....

Defend that.
Here is th exchange between Hare and Sharp:
The controversy began Thursday when Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to require all Americans buy a private product such as health care insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

"You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?" Sharp shouted back.

"I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare countered.

When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, "Doesn't matter to me. Either one."

First of all, a Congressman should know what's in the Constitution as opposed to what is in the Declaration Of Independence. I don't give Hare a pass on that.
Now you interpret "What I care more about" as a reference to the Constitution. I think he was referring to the controversy. Is the health care bill Constitutional or not. He thinks it is. I think it is. But neither of us will be the final judge. And there is nothing Congressman Hare can do to affect a court's decision.
So, is it your position that no Congressman or Senator should ever vote for any bill if they are not absolutely certain it will pass Constitutional muster?
i am sure each Congressman assessed the Constitutionality of this legislation. Congressman Hare determined to his satisfaction that it was Constitutional. His concern now becomes will it solve the problems in purports to solve?
Once the bill is passed there is no reason for any Congressman to worry about its Constitutionality. That decision is in other hands.

johnhannibalsmith
04-04-2010, 12:43 AM
...i am sure each Congressman assessed the Constitutionality of this legislation...

You may be right, but I don't necessarily think so. Had you instead stated that "each congressman that voted in favor had sincerely deemed the legislation constitutional.", I would disagree VERY strongly. I don't think for one second any Constitutionality issues were going to slow this mama down.

If I were feeling a bit more spry, I'd also take significant exception to your use of the necessary and proper clause in supporting the power of Congress to legislate on this matter. But, I'm sleepy and depressed after spending far too long reading from the book of crazies at the Democratic Underground link in the other thread. :)

NJ Stinks
04-04-2010, 02:01 AM
Right. Small story when it involves a guy with a (D) next to his name...big story when it involves any guy with the dreaded (R).



I'm guessing the one and only Mark Levin devoted two full hours to this humongous affront to the Constitution and the outrageously-biased MSM that ignored it. :sleeping:

fast4522
04-04-2010, 09:00 AM
Updated November 6, 2009.

OATH of OFFICE

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 111th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25:


All who take this oath or those who have been sworn into any job as a public servant should view this man as a outcast for taking a oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the same;, and a agenda to not bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

PaceAdvantage
04-04-2010, 02:28 PM
Now you interpret "What I care more about" as a reference to the Constitution. I think he was referring to the controversy.We'll agree to disagree on that one.

Tom
04-04-2010, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by mostpost
...i am sure each Congressman assessed the Constitutionality of this legislation...



I bet not one of them even read it!

bigmack
04-04-2010, 04:12 PM
If I'm ever found unconscious, riddled with the blood & guts of countless people, caught on video shooting and beheading undeserving folk, I want mostyposty to defend me. I'll be out whistlin' Dixie in no time. (providing we find a jury as bent as he)

boxcar
04-04-2010, 04:33 PM
If I'm ever found unconscious, riddled with the blood & guts of countless people, caught on video shooting and beheading undeserving folk, I want mostyposty to defend me. I'll be out whistlin' Dixie in no time. (providing we find a jury as bent as he)

Methinks the best you'd be able to expect out of him is his head buried deep inside a mailbag. It's postal workers' way of denying reality.

Boxcar