Pelosi: Consitutional Authority "is not a serious question"

[lawbuff]

I used the FDR detention of Japanese descendants as my example for a reason.

The fact that it was not a law (but could have been) is not important. The example served its purpose all the same.

IF such a "law" got passed tomorrow (substitute Arab for Japanese): it would be (in my estimation) pretty clearly UnConstitutional. Would it be any less so just because no Court had yet made that pronouncement?

* * * *

I see your premise, I am not disagreeing with you in principle, as CJ Taney, when he was circuit riding, struck down Lincoln's suspension of HC.

The Patriot Act is a good example also, detaining suspected terrorists without the benefit of HC.

Although the "presumption" is there of the Constitutionality of a law, I know where you are coming from, and it is a valid argument.

 

[Liability]

I used the FDR detention of Japanese descendants as my example for a reason.

The fact that it was not a law (but could have been) is not important. The example served its purpose all the same.

IF such a "law" got passed tomorrow (substitute Arab for Japanese): it would be (in my estimation) pretty clearly UnConstitutional. Would it be any less so just because no Court had yet made that pronouncement?

* * * *

I see your premise, I am not disagreeing with you in principle, as CJ Taney, when he was circuit riding, struck down Lincoln's suspension of HC.

The Patriot Act is a good example also, detaining suspected terrorists without the benefit of HC.

Although the "presumption" is there of the Constitutionality of a law, I know where you are coming from, and it is a valid argument.

The PATRIOT Act attends to a very different matter. And I disagree with you that it is UnConstitutional.

It is well past time that we see the threat of terrorist activity as the threat of enemy activity in time of war and NOT as just some so-called "criminal" activity.

Detaining the enemy (like spies and sabateours) in time of war is a remarkably civilized way of dealing with them since they are properly and justifiably subject to summary execution instead.

I still agree that laws come with a presumption of regularity and a presumption of Constitutionality. That does not mean that all laws actually ARE Constitutional.

 

[beowolfe]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

 

[Liability]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

A Clause which has exactly ZERO applicablity to the question.

 

[manu1959]

You can't only attribute that to Pelosi just because she was the only one honest enough to admit it. The federal government as a whole doesn't take the Constitution seriously.

if the federal government did exactly what the constituion said it could do and no more....millions of federal employees and military personel would be out of a job....

 

[DiamondDave]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

Epic fail winger

Directly tied to the enumerated powers... not some 'free for all' that allows congress to make up whatever it wants for 'personal necessities' or 'necessities for the populace'

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

Yes. And it gives them the authority to make any laws necessary and proper in utilizing only their legitimate constitutional powers. Universal healthcare is not a legitimate constitutional power.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes. And it gives them the authority to make any laws necessary and proper in utilizing only their legitimate constitutional powers. Universal healthcare is not a legitimate constitutional power.

This is true. The Necessary and Proper clause isn't even a good focus for this issue. The underlying action would still have to be Constitutional and therefore done under the authority of Congress' powers under the Constitution.

BUT, under the Commerce Clause the Congress and, I believe, the Courts will find that underlying authority. If you look at the last half-century of Commerce Clause law you'll find the Supreme Court is willing to stand virtually anything that impacts interstate commerce, no matter how tangentially, and with health care comprising a good fraction of the economy, it will be easy to show an impact on interstate commerce.

 

[Liability]

Yes. And it gives them the authority to make any laws necessary and proper in utilizing only their legitimate constitutional powers. Universal healthcare is not a legitimate constitutional power.

This is true. The Necessary and Proper clause isn't even a good focus for this issue. The underlying action would still have to be Constitutional and therefore done under the authority of Congress' powers under the Constitution.

BUT, under the Commerce Clause the Congress and, I believe, the Courts will find that underlying authority. If you look at the last half-century of Commerce Clause law you'll find the Supreme Court is willing to stand virtually anything that impacts interstate commerce, no matter how tangentially, and with health care comprising a good fraction of the economy, it will be easy to show an impact on interstate commerce.

As I think you have alluded to: there is a very real, distinct and huge difference between what the Commerce Clause says and the manner in which the Commerce Clause has been interpreted (misinterpreted) and used (abused).

 

[Steerpike]

As I think you have alluded to: there is a very real, distinct and huge difference between what the Commerce Clause says and the manner in which the Commerce Clause has been interpreted (misinterpreted) and used (abused).

Yes.

Before Lopez, the Commerce Clause was an almost complete free-for-all for Congress. Even after Lopez it is stretched well beyond the original intent.

 

[saveliberty]

Privacy is a common concept in our national government. No searches unless by court order or reasonable cause. Ever stop to wonder why you have a Social Security number? As a reference and privacy. It is an individual right reserved by the tenth amendment. Why have a tenth amendment except to retain state's and personal rights? There is none, but to clarify these rights.

Maybe you haven't given it much thought, but health information could prove harmful to you when attempting to get life insurance, a job or a loan. Your children could be discriminated against based on your health history.

 

[Contumacious]

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

She is correct.

In 1935 we had a revolution. FDR disavowed the original founding fathers and adopted Karl Marx as the ONLY legitimate Founding Father of the NEW Welfare/Warfare State Republic.

Under the Welfare/Warfare State Republic Congress has the authority to rule with impunity.


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes. And it gives them the authority to make any laws necessary and proper in utilizing only their legitimate constitutional powers. Universal healthcare is not a legitimate constitutional power.

This is true. The Necessary and Proper clause isn't even a good focus for this issue. The underlying action would still have to be Constitutional and therefore done under the authority of Congress' powers under the Constitution.

BUT, under the Commerce Clause the Congress and, I believe, the Courts will find that underlying authority. If you look at the last half-century of Commerce Clause law you'll find the Supreme Court is willing to stand virtually anything that impacts interstate commerce, no matter how tangentially, and with health care comprising a good fraction of the economy, it will be easy to show an impact on interstate commerce.

Glad to see your back posting. We've had some great discussions in the past, and I haven't seen you around in a while. So welcome back.

At any rate, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would rule that universal healthcare is constitutional. I will, however, once again make the point that constitutional law has little to no basis in the actual Constitution most of the time.

 

[Mike458877]

You can't only attribute that to Pelosi just because she was the only one honest enough to admit it. The federal government as a whole doesn't take the Constitution seriously.

Kevin Kennedy, Pelosi was not honest enough to admit anything, she was stupid enough to do so!

Are you kidding me?

This woman doesn't make sense 50% of the time and is lost the other 45% of the time.

Mike

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can't only attribute that to Pelosi just because she was the only one honest enough to admit it. The federal government as a whole doesn't take the Constitution seriously.

Kevin Kennedy, Pelosi was not honest enough to admit anything, she was stupid enough to do so!

Are you kidding me?

This woman doesn't make sense 50% of the time and is lost the other 45% of the time.

Mike

Well I was attempting to be polite.

 

[Liability]

You can't only attribute that to Pelosi just because she was the only one honest enough to admit it. The federal government as a whole doesn't take the Constitution seriously.

Kevin Kennedy, Pelosi was not honest enough to admit anything, she was stupid enough to do so!

Are you kidding me?

This woman doesn't make sense 50% of the time and is lost the other 45% of the time.

Mike

That's 95%. Please don't tell me you are suggesting that Pelousy does make sense around 5% of the time!

 

[Xenophon]

Queen Nan sure hates those pesky American laws.

 

[California Girl]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution.

Ok. People - Joke has spoken. None of us know jackshit and he is in full possession of all the facts. Good news indeed. It is confirmed that we're good to go with healthcare.

On behalf of the American People, Jakeass, thank you for sharing your wisdom.


**

 

[manu1959]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution.

so if the constitution doesn't specifically ban something then it is therefore constitional to do it....