Does this Reflect the View of Most Liberals?

[Charles_Main]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE]YouTube - PETE STARK: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country -[/ame]

This peach of a politician is also famous for Goading the Minuet Men saying on TV to one of them. "How many Illegals are you going to go out and kill today" and more recently is on record saying the Border is Very Secure.

But what I want to know is how many other liberals think the Federal Government can do "most anything"

At a July 24 town hall meeting, a female attendee asked, (referring to the mandate in the federal health care bill passed earlier this year requiring Americans to purchase medical insurance), "If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government's ability to tell us how to run our private lives?" With a brief appearance of that "deer in the headlights" look, Pete, to his credit gave only a somewhat half-assed answer. The same female attendee then had to very simply explain how enumerated powers work according to the United States Constitution: It spells out certain powers of the federal government and splits all other power with the states. She then asked how the legislation is constitutional, and if the federal government could make individuals purchase what is, for now, a completely voluntary service, what can't they do? The question was put even more bluntly: "Is your answer that they can do anything? Pete's response? "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."

The Woman then said "you sir, and people like you are Destroying this country" Just an average American who gets it. IMO

Read more: Congressman Stark: "The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything" - Page 2 - Technorati Politics


The scary thing is he may be right. IMO if none of the Law suits against Obamacare succeed. Then the Government will be able to do ALMOST anything under the commerce clause. After all with Health care they are claiming they can Make you buy something simply because you are not buying it. Under that logic they could use the commerce clause to massively expand the scope and power of the Federal government.

IMO if we lose these law suits against the unconstitutional Health care Bill. Federalism is Dead.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, that is the consensus of most on the Left. It is not a matter whether gov't has the power to do something. It is a matter of whether their actions will result in something good or bad. Thus limiting handguns in school zones sounds like a great exercise of federal power. Except the USSC declared they didnt have that power (Lopez).

 

[JBeukema]

I swear we've seen this thread before...

 

[RDD_1210]

Yeah, we've been through this already. This woman is NOT an average american. Not if she thinks the healthcare bill equates to slavery. Give me a break.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yeah, we've been through this already. This woman is NOT an average american. Not if she thinks the healthcare bill equates to slavery. Give me a break.

Like that changes anything about the Congressman's comments. Or liberals who believe it. Her question is completely legitimate, and one Average Americans would like to hear answered.

I can even see her Argument about slavery, though I do think it is over the top. The point is the Government is claiming the power to mandate you Buy something, simply because you are not buying it. One can see how you might feel like a slave when not only do you have to pay taxes, but the government can FORCE you to buy things they want you to buy from Private companies using the Commerce clause. What is next buy a Hybrid car or pay a "Tax" justified under the Commerce clause. It saddens me that so many people have lost site of the single most important thing about American Republican Democracy. That Government should be limited in it's power, not omnipotent

 

[Greenbeard]

What was that argument? Health insurance = enslavement of providers? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that.

 

[JBeukema]

Basically, her argument is that the police and firefighters are slaves because they have to do their jobs

 

[daveman]

What was that argument? Health insurance = enslavement of providers? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that.

Can you wrap your head around Stark's view that the Federal government can do anything it wants, Constitutional limitations be damned?

That's the point of this thread.

 

[Greenbeard]

Can you wrap your head around Stark's view that the Federal government can do anything it wants, Constitutional limitations be damned?

That's the point of this thread.

I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into Constitutional opinions offered to a woman trying to bait him with one of the most absurdly idiotic comparisons ever made--she asked a Constitutional question predicated on the assertion that our medical system is run on the backs of slaves.

Do we have Stark discussing this matter and elaborating on a similar answer in a real forum, with adults?

 

[Richard-H]

Congressman Stark answered this question extremely poorly. How the question was posed was equally poor, and absolutely leading - she drew the conclusion to her own answer before he even started to answer. I'm surprised he fell for it. He seems like a plant.

The correct answer is:

There is no definitive limit to which unalienable rights exist.

Yet every right is a limited right.

So that yes, the government may consider a right to healthcare, but only a limited right to healthcare. Defining that limit is a challenge for the legislature and supreme court.

Acknowleding that everyone has a limited right to healthcare does not mean that anyone is a slave to anyone else.

It is clear that there is no right to practice healthcare professions. It is a priviledge, not a right. The government has a responsibility to set the standards by which the healthcare professionals may and may not exercise that priviledge.

It is entirely possible for the Government to both set the standard by which healthcare may operate while at the same time defining a limited right to healthcare services for everyone - without undue burden on the healthcare professionals.

 

[Greenbeard]

The correct answer is:

I would also accept a response to her from Stark along these lines:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Insanely Idiotic[/ame]

 

[Ragnar]

Hot Air More Pete Stark: Refusing to hire illegals might be unconstitutional

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uP7LDteLw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - PETE STARK: Clarify E-verify. Pete stumped again![/ame]

On its face, his position isn’t nutty: E-Verify has been challenged on constitutional grounds before, as all immigration enforcement measures invariably are, and he’s probably right that if a government agency chose to use it for, say, new Latino employees and no one else, they might be at risk for an equal protection lawsuit. But ultimately, that’s not the thrust of his argument; his point seems to be that placing limits on illegal labor is itself some kind of constitutional violation. Which, ironically, is a position you’re more likely to find among libertarians, not far-left liberals.

I’m not sure where this clip, combined with yesterday’s, leaves us with respect to the Pete Stark theory of deciding when laws are and aren’t constitutional, so let’s just say he knows it when he sees it and leave it at that.

Great. With Pete Stark Raving Mad in charge you can be damned for hiring illegals and damned if you don't.

 

[Charles_Main]

What was that argument? Health insurance = enslavement of providers? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that.

Nah that is a stupid argument, no I see it more like we are becoming slaves to the state.

 

[daveman]

Can you wrap your head around Stark's view that the Federal government can do anything it wants, Constitutional limitations be damned?

That's the point of this thread.

I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into Constitutional opinions offered to a woman trying to bait him with one of the most absurdly idiotic comparisons ever made--she asked a Constitutional question predicated on the assertion that our medical system is run on the backs of slaves.

Do we have Stark discussing this matter and elaborating on a similar answer in a real forum, with adults?

Way to dismiss it!

 

[daveman]

Hot Air More Pete Stark: Refusing to hire illegals might be unconstitutional

YouTube - PETE STARK: Clarify E-verify. Pete stumped again!

On its face, his position isn’t nutty: E-Verify has been challenged on constitutional grounds before, as all immigration enforcement measures invariably are, and he’s probably right that if a government agency chose to use it for, say, new Latino employees and no one else, they might be at risk for an equal protection lawsuit. But ultimately, that’s not the thrust of his argument; his point seems to be that placing limits on illegal labor is itself some kind of constitutional violation. Which, ironically, is a position you’re more likely to find among libertarians, not far-left liberals.

I’m not sure where this clip, combined with yesterday’s, leaves us with respect to the Pete Stark theory of deciding when laws are and aren’t constitutional, so let’s just say he knows it when he sees it and leave it at that.

Great. With Pete Stark Raving Mad in charge you can be damned for hiring illegals and damned if you don't.

"...and I can tell you don't like the Constitution, by the way..."

How the hell would you know, Pete? You haven't even read the thing!

Sheesh, what an idiot. And the people who keep electing him must be idiots, too.

 

[Richard-H]

I strongly suspect that Congressman Stark is a conservative plant pretending to be a liberal. He is exactly what conservatives dream of liberals being. His answers could not be stupider.

Seriously folks can't his district do better?

 

[daveman]

I strongly suspect that Congressman Stark is a conservative plant pretending to be a liberal. He is exactly what conservatives dream of liberals being. His answers could not be stupider.

Seriously folks can't his district do better?

Nope. He's one of yours.

 

[The Rabbi]

I strongly suspect that Congressman Stark is a conservative plant pretending to be a liberal. He is exactly what conservatives dream of liberals being. His answers could not be stupider.

Seriously folks can't his district do better?

You hope that.
In fact Rep Stark represents your view perfectly. There is nothing the FedGov cannot do if the payoff for doing it is worthwhile. That includes dictating what kinds of foods people can eat.

 

[oreo]

The difference between liberals and conservatives:

Liberals are typically more concerned about -re-distribution of the eggs that the Golden Goose lays--while conservatives are typically more concerned about the health of the Golden Goose.

Liberals believe that Government can take care of all their needs--and can do it better than the private sector. Liberals in essense believe in socialism--even though it has failed in every country it's been tried.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The fact the government just forced you to purchase a product lest you be hassled by the jackboots at the IRS pretty much proves that the government can do whatever the hell it wants.