Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

[007]

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

Feel free to accept the arguments of people who...because of partisan hackery...try to convince you of things without OBJECTIVITY or HONESTY.

Read my sig...neither side has the 100% lock on reason or logic or a history of doing the right thing. NEITHER.

Feel free not to respect me. That's your choice...but when you expect someone to read one of your posts...a post I can guess has ZERO logic because you are more intent on proving conservatives right...even if facts or logic dictate differently...then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'm actually glad you said this because compromise doesnt have to be a bad thing. That's what's missing in today's debates. People (on both sides) want to dig in ...and won't concede one point that the other side might actually have right.

Compromising has 2 meanings...sure it can mean selling out or giving in like a weakling...but if that's the only definition you accept, then you need an education.

Compromise is ALSO giving a bit to get a bit. It's one of the pillars of democracy. Working together despite differences to move forward.

OK... since now you want to call teaparty a LIAR, show me where he/she said anything that wasn't true, other than calling you a liberal.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I saw this on the news. One of the biggest problems in the US today is our law makers care little about what the Constitution says and could give a hoot about passing bills that are within the limits of the Consitituion. The Constitution is simply being ignored. You can't tell me that Owe Bama doesn't know the Health Care Bill he just signed isn't allowed for in the Constitution. It's a shame when your President doesn't follow the Constitution. Very bad example for the rest of us.

 

[Oddball]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

TOTAL misinterpretation and misapplication of the commerce clause....Might as well be quoting Dred Scott.


Nonetheless, there's nothing in the commerce clause that can be, by even the most strained stretch of "logic", construed to conclude that the feds have any power to force the citizenry to buy any product or service.

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

 

[007]

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

Feel free to accept the arguments of people who...because of partisan hackery...try to convince you of things without OBJECTIVITY or HONESTY.

Read my sig...neither side has the 100% lock on reason or logic or a history of doing the right thing. NEITHER.

Feel free not to respect me. That's your choice...but when you expect someone to read one of your posts...a post I can guess has ZERO logic because you are more intent on proving conservatives right...even if facts or logic dictate differently...then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'm actually glad you said this because compromise doesnt have to be a bad thing. That's what's missing in today's debates. People (on both sides) want to dig in ...and won't concede one point that the other side might actually have right.

Compromising has 2 meanings...sure it can mean selling out or giving in like a weakling...but if that's the only definition you accept, then you need an education.

Compromise is ALSO giving a bit to get a bit. It's one of the pillars of democracy. Working together despite differences to move forward.

OK... since now you want to call teaparty a LIAR, show me where he/she said anything that wasn't true, other than calling you a liberal.

TOTAL misinterpretation and misapplication of the commerce clause....Might as well be quoting Dred Scott.


Nonetheless, there's nothing in the commerce clause that can be, by even the most strained stretch of "logic", construed to conclude that the feds have any power to force the citizenry to buy any product or service.

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

I can hear the crickets chirping now...

 

[Charles Stucker]

The Commerce Clause.

The states need to call for a constitutional convention to get RID of that damn commerce clause (or at least close the loopholes being used) before the socialists destroy what is left of prosperity in this country.

 

[Samson]

I think its extraordinary that the guy could read a 2,000+ page bill three (3) times, and conclude that it was a net public benefit, but he trips up on questions about the 4,400 word US Consitution.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Has he called everyone "Evil Racists" and "Un-American Nazis" yet for daring to question his sanity? If he hasn't yet i'm sure he will. Vote all Socialists/Progressives out of office. 2010 could be a big year for Freedom & Liberty. Get out there and Vote.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Better start lookin for a Job." Nuff said.

 

[Gunny]

Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution - Big Journalism

Here is the money quote that tells it all:

YouTube - Phil Hare doesn't care.


What gets me is his cowardice when he is confronted with his lying. He takes the out of all outrageous liars. We have all met them. They tell ridiculous lies but demand we all believe them implicitly. When you "dare" not to believe them, they become outraged. (Bill Clinton springs to mind, in that category).

So, he just trounces out because he knows he can't defend his outrageous lie, but he is still furious, they didn't believe it.

"Do you KNOW what I do for a living? Peasant! How DARE you question me on the bill!"

They really nailed him on this video. I love it.

We need to get every one of those louses that voted for the bill on video, just like this and put them on the internet for everyone to see and remember for election time.

November 2 is coming people, and I can't wait!

Shill much?

 

[Avatar4321]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

 

[Vanquish]

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

Feel free to accept the arguments of people who...because of partisan hackery...try to convince you of things without OBJECTIVITY or HONESTY.

Read my sig...neither side has the 100% lock on reason or logic or a history of doing the right thing. NEITHER.

Feel free not to respect me. That's your choice...but when you expect someone to read one of your posts...a post I can guess has ZERO logic because you are more intent on proving conservatives right...even if facts or logic dictate differently...then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'm actually glad you said this because compromise doesnt have to be a bad thing. That's what's missing in today's debates. People (on both sides) want to dig in ...and won't concede one point that the other side might actually have right.

Compromising has 2 meanings...sure it can mean selling out or giving in like a weakling...but if that's the only definition you accept, then you need an education.

Compromise is ALSO giving a bit to get a bit. It's one of the pillars of democracy. Working together despite differences to move forward.

OK... since now you want to call teaparty a LIAR, show me where he/she said anything that wasn't true, other than calling you a liberal.

I dont want to call anyone a liar. Honesty is a broader point than that in the abstract. I'd like to give you credit for understanding that, but since you're trying to paint me as accusing someone of lying I just cant. I was speaking in the broader sense of someone being honest when they post and not just following talking points...not calling TeaParty a liar. Get the difference?

But it is interesting that you picked up on the feeble attempt to paint me into one camp or the other. Great work there.

TOTAL misinterpretation and misapplication of the commerce clause....Might as well be quoting Dred Scott.


Nonetheless, there's nothing in the commerce clause that can be, by even the most strained stretch of "logic", construed to conclude that the feds have any power to force the citizenry to buy any product or service.

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

So I'm supposed to stand up and clap...or better yet give in...because you can identify a rhetorical device? OMG, I'm quaking. (BTW, no crickets there...I went to lunch )

As far as defending the Commerce Clause to you, that's been done all over these forums. It's pretty ridiculous how these threads all devolve back into the same arguments over and over again with no progress. You're not going to concede even one point...despite the fact that I've made the major concession that the current interpretation is a power grab.

So there you go...I'll pat myself on the back for being the better man...you can pat yourself on the back for the faux "win" should you care to. The funny thing is...should the court change gears on its interpretation...that's what I'm interested in...the court maintaining the constitution and not breaking stare decisis. I'm in favor of the healthcare law, but not if it's unconstitutional.

 

[Oddball]

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

So I'm supposed to stand up and clap...or better yet give in...because you can identify a rhetorical device? OMG, I'm quaking. (BTW, no crickets there...I went to lunch )

As far as defending the Commerce Clause to you, that's been done all over these forums. It's pretty ridiculous how these threads all devolve back into the same arguments over and over again with no progress. You're not going to concede even one point...despite the fact that I've made the major concession that the current interpretation is a power grab.

So there you go...I'll pat myself on the back for being the better man...you can pat yourself on the back for the faux "win" should you care to. The funny thing is...should the court change gears on its interpretation...that's what I'm interested in...the court maintaining the constitution and not breaking stare decisis. I'm in favor of the healthcare law, but not if it's unconstitutional.

Uh-huh....Definitely baffling with bullshit.

 

[George Costanza]

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

 

[jillian]

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

of course they have the right to regulate it. but even if they didn't have the right to do so under the commerce clause, they have the right to do so under the general welfare clause, which has been interpreted fairly broadly.

and you and i may not pretend to be constitutional scholars... but the pretend constitutionalists do.

isn't that funny?

 

[Vanquish]

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

Appeals to authority don't fly, Bubba. Moreover, you've still failed to point out anything in the grossly abused commerce clause, where the power is to force anyone to buy any product or service.

Or, to quote Andrew Jackson; "They made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it".

So I'm supposed to stand up and clap...or better yet give in...because you can identify a rhetorical device? OMG, I'm quaking. (BTW, no crickets there...I went to lunch )

As far as defending the Commerce Clause to you, that's been done all over these forums. It's pretty ridiculous how these threads all devolve back into the same arguments over and over again with no progress. You're not going to concede even one point...despite the fact that I've made the major concession that the current interpretation is a power grab.

So there you go...I'll pat myself on the back for being the better man...you can pat yourself on the back for the faux "win" should you care to. The funny thing is...should the court change gears on its interpretation...that's what I'm interested in...the court maintaining the constitution and not breaking stare decisis. I'm in favor of the healthcare law, but not if it's unconstitutional.

Uh-huh....Definitely baffling with bullshit.

If that's all you got...sounds like I wasted some effort on you. No worries. Easy mistake to correct.

I have a 1st Amendment case based on Connick vs. Meyers in my case load currently. That's not to grand stand...anyone can have an opinion, but simply to communicate to anyone reading my personal posts that I've spent time grappling with these issues in real life. Should you want to give me credibility...that's up to you.

Most people's minds are already made up on these boards anyway.

 

[teapartysamurai]

WHAT???????

The interstate commerce clause says the government can FORCE you to buy something?????

What the hell????????

PLEASE try to explain that one. I would LOVE to hear you try and explain that one.

Most of the writing I have read on the health care bill's anticipated treatment by the United States Supreme Court, states that the Court will probably refuse to strike the bill down, mainly on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

And if the government is forcing you to do something it is at the point of a gun. It's not like the government has never done that before.

I thought so. Just an inflammatory phrase designed to scare people.

Better than a bullshit phrase designed to fool people. That's what you did with the "because everyone says so" statement about the commerce clause.

SHOW ME IN THE CLAUSE WHERE IT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE YOU TO BUY SOMETHING LIKE INSURANCE.

You can't, so cut the crap.

AND IT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF HAVING THE GOVERNMENT POINT A GUN AT OUR HEADS.

I just gave an example.

So, who is being inflammtory?

 

[teapartysamurai]

This video should make us all ashamed.

1. He did say he doesn't care about the constitution. That's bad. Dreadfully bad.
2. The video is insulting, "gotcha" rhetoric. I'm all for people holding representative accountable, but as you can tell from the video they insulted the man by calling him Nazi, Communist and now a liar.

So here we have another example of how no one is winning when civilized debate falls by the wayside.

Now here this, someone's lying and it isn't me! Centrist my ass. If I had a dime for every liberal that claimed to be a "centrist, progressive, blah blah blah," I would be richer than George Soros.

The only person who said "NAZI" in this video was PHIL HARRIS the Congressman. He says under his breathe "oh you call me a liar and a Nazi."

No one in the video beside Phil Harris utters the word Nazi.

Another tactic of the LYING LIBERALS. They KNOW they cannot fight the truth on the right, so they are trying to smear us.

And if ANYONE has been calling anyone NAZI it has been liberals who have called conservatives Nazi since I have been alive.

And shall we remember Nancy Pelosi's lying claim of tea partiers carrying "swastikaaaaaaaahs."

Keep on lying liberals. All it reveals is, how afraid you are to debate us honestly, because if you do, you know you lose.

If this is how you debate...there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. No really, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it really hard.

I am a Centrist, buddy. I'm for term limits, I'm anti-abortion, I'm pro-gun...I could go on and on. So a) dont tell me what I am and b) dont accuse me of lying.

Hell, did you not see that I thought him saying he didnt care about the constitution was bad?

Do you just make up your mind about someone then start typing drivel? Come on, get your head unstuck and let's debate this rationally.

As far as the Nazi comment...you can tell from the context that he was called a Nazi earlier before the camera was rolling (or perhaps it was cut out). Do you want to look at this objectively ... or just be a partisan hack?

If you'd bother to read any of my other threads...I've linked to www.brain-terminal.com (a conservative filmmaker in the style of Michael Moore) where there are vids of dems using Nazi claims against Bush. I am a centrist, buddy.

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

If you are a centrist then how come you do the TYPICAL LIBERAL tactic of when contronted with facts you cannot refute, you start hysterically attacking me?

Did you think that was going to work? That I would start flaming back and derail the debate? WRONGO!

And we can tell he was called Nazi before the cameras rolled? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT or is that your PARTISAN HACK ASSUMPTION? LOL

I love this. Can you imagine that one in a court? "Your honor, we don't have on camera that the accused called anyone Nazi, but we KNOW he said it before the camera's rolled."

Oh yeah! That would work!

When all is said it done, it still boils down, to the fact you simply let your own bigoted assumptions about those questioning Phil Harris spill out, "because we all know how those tea partiers are!" Right?

And when those assumptions were challenged, you went into a partisan hack attack mode.

Does it ever crack everyone else up that the ONLY people that are NEVER "partisan" are liberals, er I mean "Centrists?" (Centrist, yeah what a laugh)

I don't care if you call yourself a moonie. The rhetoric tells a different story.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

I'm a she!

And I'm wrong about him/her? I don't think so.

I don't care if she calls herself a martian. Liberalism speaks louder than the labels they use for themselves.

 

[teapartysamurai]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Correctamundo.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

One man's power grab is another man's mandate.

I like your style, by the way. Good to see someone who is interested in rational posting.

The government has NO authority to MANDATE a FREE PERSON to BUY something. ZERO. ZILTCH, NONE! And if SCOTUS decides it does, this will turn into a revolution or Civil War. The people will never stand for it. Mark my words.

The USSC decided that they could stop the Freedom of Speech with McCain/Feingold. It took years, but it finally got repealed.

Even if the USSC agrees with Obama, that's not the end. It can be repealed.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The Interstate commerce clause does not authorize government intervention into health care. It authorizes government regulation of interstate commerce. Using that justification, the max the Federal Government could possibly do in the health care industry is to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, as that would be interstate commerce.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or even a Constitutional lawyer. But I think that if the Court finds that a purely intrastate activity has defacto impact on interstate commerce, jurisdiction exists to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause.

of course they have the right to regulate it. but even if they didn't have the right to do so under the commerce clause, they have the right to do so under the general welfare clause, which has been interpreted fairly broadly.

and you and i may not pretend to be constitutional scholars... but the pretend constitutionalists do.

isn't that funny?

Who is pretending. We are asking a question, no one is honestly answering. Where in the Constituiton does it say the government can force you to buy something? Anything? Especially insurance?

All I am getting is a lot of BS like "well the experts say so."

But "general welfare" isn't a clause in the Constitution. It's a phrase in the Preamble. And interstate commerce doesn't cover unfunded mandates by the government to buy insurance.

I am still waiting for anyone to prove otherwise.