Congressman - "I don't worry about the Constitution..."

[longhorn_92]

Why do we continue to elect people into Congress and into the White House that do not worry about what the constitution says? Does the Constitution matter anymore?...
--------------------------------------

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health 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."

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

"But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country," Hare said.

Sharp said the law won't do that.

The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the "maldistribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," Baucus said after the Senate passed a "fix it" bill to make changes to the health care law.

"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America," he said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."


" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[marksiwel]

so if they got an amendment passed for Health-care Canada/Uk style, would that be better?

[longhorn_92]

so if they got an amendment passed for Health-care Canada/Uk style, would that be better?

This is much deeper than just a health care issue. This is much deeper than a left versus right argument. This is so much deeper than the Democrat versus Republican... (BTW, both are guilty of trampling the Constitution).

This is about Freedom and Liberty and the continual loss of both(for many years)! That is why many people are upset...

[boomerang]

so if they got an amendment passed for Health-care Canada/Uk style, would that be better?

Legally yes. Morally no.

Same as if they passed an amendment denying religious freedom to Baptists.

[GrayGhost]

so if they got an amendment passed for Health-care Canada/Uk style, would that be better?

I suppose it would be better than trampling the law of the land. But I really don't think they would be successful even if they tried. The people wouldn't stand for it.

[gemini]

"maldistribution of wealth?" heck, here's the solution.....

Bar Stool Economics:
>
>Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
>ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
>it would go something like this:
>
>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1.
>The sixth would pay $3.
>The seventh would pay $7.
>The eighth would pay $12.
>The ninth would pay $18.
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
>So, that's what they decided to do.
>The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
>the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since
>you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the
>cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
>
>The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
>the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
>
>But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
>they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
>share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
>subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
>sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the
>bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
>by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
>each should pay.
>
>And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
>The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
>The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
>The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
>The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
>The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
>Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
>Continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
>men began to compare their savings.
>
>'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He
>Pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'
>Exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair
>That he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the
>Seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The
>wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four
>men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the
poor!'
>
>The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
>The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
>sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
>bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
>money between all of them for even half of the bill!
>
>And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors,
>is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
>get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack
>them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
>fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
>somewhat friendlier.
>

[Alamais]

bravo, great explanation, too bad people don't understand simple economics.

[casingpoint]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money---Margaret Thacher.

[bdickens]

Why Socialism doesn't work
Americans have learned this lesson the hard way before in their history, starting with the Pilgrims. From Steve Finefrock:


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.


The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/06/w ... -work.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chabouk]

I appreciate the allegories and anecdotes about why socialism won't work, but that approach fails because it's an appeal to pragmatism. It implies that if it would work, it would be okay; and the opposition claims that it might work if we'll just give it a chance, so it's all about pragmatism.

That ignores the issue presented in the original post: "Where is the constitutional authority for this bill?"

If more politicians would ask that question, and seek to honestly answer it, we wouldn't have anywhere near the mess we have now. An honest reading of the interstate commerce clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments would give zero authority for the federal government to regulate in-state sales of firearms, "school zones", in-state growth, production, and sale of marijuana and other drugs, or prosecute Roscoe Filburn for growing his own wheat on his own farm to feed his own family and livestock.

[marksiwel]

I appreciate the allegories and anecdotes about why socialism won't work, but that approach fails because it's an appeal to pragmatism. It implies that if it would work, it would be okay; and the opposition claims that it might work if we'll just give it a chance, so it's all about pragmatism.

That ignores the issue presented in the original post: "Where is the constitutional authority for this bill?"

If more politicians would ask that question, and seek to honestly answer it, we wouldn't have anywhere near the mess we have now. An honest reading of the interstate commerce clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments would give zero authority for the federal government to regulate in-state sales of firearms, "school zones", in-state growth, production, and sale of marijuana and other drugs, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn for growing his own wheat on his own farm to feed his own family and livestock.

Honesty in Politics? Who are you?
this is why I said we should rewrite the Constitution, its served its purpose, time to rewrite it. Make it better and less Hazy

[chabouk]

Honesty in Politics? Who are you?

If I was a politician, I'd be Ron Paul.

this is why I said we should rewrite the Constitution, its served its purpose, time to rewrite it. Make it better and less Hazy

The haze isn't due to the wording of the Constitution, it's a result of endless manipulation and twisting by politicians and judges who seek to alter the plain meaning to their own ends.

We don't need to re-write the Constitution, we need to re-read it.

[pbwalker]

We don't need to re-write the Constitution, we need to re-read it.

Bingo!

And to suggest that we need to rewrite the foundation on which this country was built is deplorable... IMHO of course.

[boomerang]

That ignores the issue presented in the original post: "Where is the constitutional authority for this bill?"

Quoted for Truth

[sjfcontrol]

We don't need to re-write the Constitution, we need to re-read it.

Quote of the day!