April 2, 2010

A Congressman who doesn't know much about the Constitution.

Or YouTube.

30 comments:

Deborah said...

Ha. heard this on Boortz this morning. At least he admitted he didn't know! And as usual, confuses the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. And as usual, ran away when his constituents got him in a corner. Granted, the constituent called him a liar but it was silly and cowardly to run.

wv: nolikela.

Peter V. Bella said...

He said what he said. Now he is being a weasel. He looks like a weasel, talks like a weasel, and walks like a weasel.

Peter V. Bella said...

Deborah,
He ran because he was called a liar? That means he is a coward too.

themightypuck said...

Who is actually right here will have to wait for the SCOTUS to decide.

Deborah said...

Yes. An ignorant, silly, lying coward. Man up!

wv: hankness. Ha.

rhhardin said...

It seems like nothing to me.

He's a Democrat. What else is new.

The Constitution just means you have to consider where the court is, nothing more.

They ought to put that in the oath.

Chip Ahoy said...

Angry Monkey: LIES!

Congressman: Are you calling me a liar?

Angry Monkey: Um, why, yes, I am.

Congressman: That does it!

))) slam (((

Runs.

Alex said...

The Constitution is that stupid old document written by white slave owners that just "gets in the way" of the progressive agenda.

rhhardin said...

McCain had that moment on Imus when he said he preferred clean government over so-called free speech; and came on the next week to explain that the Constitution of course was the most important thing to him.

Reverence to the Constitution is boilerplate that you're required to say, like the pledge of allegiance, to prove you're not subversive.

Politics doesn't actually consider it in the deal making, except occasionally as a thought about what the courts might do and how to finesse tham.

The complaint has to go through the court. Congress is expected to act the way it acts.

Irene said...

Who cares about the Constitution when the justifications for the legislation pivot on anecdotes?

Each resort to a "thump, thump, thump," or "heart-pumping" anecdote lays a moral gloss over the issue, superceding the austere and aloof rule of law.

steve said...

I actually felt sympathy for him. I did not like the way he was being hectored. When an exchange gets that heated a gaffe is much more likely. He was getting emotional and it looked more like a verbal slip up in the heat of the moment than a considered opinion. As far as I'm concerned it was "gotcha" politics. He looked like a sincere guy who simply had different ideas about how to address a difficult problem.

Health insurance is a problem. Sometimes a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution flies in the face of simple humanity (remember the civil rights laws).

SteveR said...

"life liberty and the pursuit of free health care" That's in Article 2 right.

I can read 8100 pages in three days because I took the Evelyn Woodhead Sped reading course and my comprension increased also.

E Buzz said...

Hey, he knows some lawyers! He's important, he's SMAHT!

Two good videos today, this sleazy Illinois idiot and that bimbo who made us feel so good knowning that she too will also be taxed, because she's quiet wealthy.

I remember the Ferraro/Bush debate where Ferraro had this sneering elitist suburban Mom bitch stuff, bragging about her accountants and lawyers and he great she was...

Those lefties love to have great stuff. That's on of the many peculiar personality traits I've noticed in lefties.

But you guys see what you did wrong. You had all that fun talking about how great Communism is and how we need egalitarianism altruism out of everyone, and now YOU GET TO FIND OUT. You're gonna get fucked just like the rest of us...it's not a little cocktail party light conversation.

How does that feel?

Palladian said...

"
Health insurance is a problem. Sometimes a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution flies in the face of simple humanity (remember the civil rights laws)."

"Strict constructionist" interpretation, Sloppy deconstructionist interpretation, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution or its amendments that declares "health insurance" a right, nor is there anything to suggest that citizens should be compelled by law to purchase products from private corporations. It. Ain't. In. There.

It's "simple humanity" that's gotten us in the hole we're in. I'm tired of liberty and sound governance being made casualties of some mushy-headed idea of compassion. I'd rather not have my compassion extracted at gunpoint.

William said...

In defense of the Congressman, the Declaration of Independence is one of our sacred texts and is, therefore, by extension part of our Constitution......I objected to his giving anecdotal evidence of the crippling bills of a sick child. It seemed a manipulative argument to make. He was standing on a large mound of bullshit and claiming the moral high ground. There are other people who will suffer because of this bill. They will wait longer, or have their treatment delayed or denied, or any of a number of other scenarios that are acted out in countries with national health care. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Congressman to shed a tear for them.....All politics is local, but the health care bill is local to the point of being personal.

Deborah said...

He was asked a simple question about the constitutional authority to force people to buy health insurance which he would not/could not answer. I feel no sympathy for him or any other congressperson who is this stupid. They have been screwing us to the wall and running the country into the ground. They deserve what they get.

edutcher said...

The Democrat Party has been waging a war on the US Constitution since Woody Wilson.

What the Hell else did you expect?

mesquito said...

Wiki:

"For the next 24 years Hare worked as an aide to Evans, assisting the Congressman primarily on constituent issues and labor problems. During his tenure as an aide to Evans, Phil Hare oversaw the closings of Case International Harvestor plant in East Moline[2], and the Maytag plant in Galesburg[3]. The closings of these major businesses and many others resulted in a loss of more than 2,200 jobs in the 17th district. In the last few years of Evans' time in Congress, Hare attended several speaking engagements and even debated Evans' opponents in 2002 and 2004 because of the Congressman's Parkinsons disease, which has often prevented Evans from participating in the engagements."

We sociologists call this the Peter Principle

Eric said...

I guess I would be more outraged if the Constitution hadn't been systematically gutted since the civil war.

E Buzz said...

"He was standing on a large mound of bullshit and claiming the moral high ground."

Explains the attitudes of most liberals. The ones who came of age in the 60's early 70's are usually this way.

Fen said...

In defense of the Congressman, the Declaration of Independence is one of our sacred texts and is, therefore, by extension part of our Constitution

No offense, buts that crap.

You'd be better off arguing that "the Bible by extension is part of our Constitution because our Rule of Law originates from Judeo-Christian tradition."

And you'd still be wrong.


[...]

Hey Ann, can we have a do-over for April Fools? The Libtards need another excuse for another one of their "sophisticated enlightened" congress-critters...

rollingdivision said...

Every once in a while a liberal will forget himself and honestly talk about his actual motivations and political beliefs. This is just such a case. He is not one bit different than 90 percent of his Democrat peers who believe the US Constitution is a burden and hindrance to their goals of statist utopia.

Big Mike said...

Pixels are forever.

bend said...

Uh, my speakers are out so I can't watch the Youtube, but if the transcript is right then the only thing he was wrong about is that the pursuit of happiness bit is actually in the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution. A bit of a venial sin, isn't it?

tim maguire said...

I thought he came off ok. Clearly he's being hounded and baited by people looking for the "gotcha" moment and he said some careless things he later regretted.

Who really looks worse?

jeff said...

"Who really looks worse?"
The guy who said he doesn't care about the constitution and then lied about reading the bill. Any more real easy questions?

AllenS said...

People die from all kinds of things, disease, auto accidents, gunshots.... Nobody dies from not having health insurance.

It's in the Constitution, you can look it up.

Opus One Media said...

In your hurry to be snarky you missed the point.

There is no "debate" here and yes it was taken out of context. What was the point of the question? "if it isn't in the constitution then it can't happen"...is that the dumbass question? You want to be locked into the 1780s for the rest of your life?

And it isn't a debate when one persons says something, the other person responds and person #1 says well, you're lying. Then the debate is about lying not about the facts.

You write wing fools are just that. Fools. You have nothing. You bring on nothing. You "debate" like a kid and frankly this guy was just a roaring asshole.

AllenS said...

You write wing fools are just that

WV:cwgfxyls

That's watt you are.

Mick said...

Althouse doesn't know much about the Constitution either. She doesn't know that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen (his father was not a US citizen when Obama 2 was born).