Pelosi: Consitutional Authority "is not a serious question"

[Ame®icano]

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.

 

[Ame®icano]

Almost forgot...

 

[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.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I wouldn't put Pelosi and honest in the same sentence. Was she stupid enough or just showing the muscle anyone who is questioning her outhority.

However, can anyone answer the question from the OP?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

 

[loosecannon]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

I actually agree with you. I think the feds clearly do not have this authority.

So here's the deal, if the bill passes a class action lawsuit is the only recourse. But we need a million complaintants.

And of course we need attorneys. But let's challenge it and test the law. We have nothing to lose but a $100 each, vs a few $1000 each if we get the fine or $13,000 each if we pay for insurance.

 

[Steerpike]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

Anyone who claims it falls under the General Welfare clause clearly doesn't understand it. If it gets passed it will fall under the Commerce Clause, like almost everything else Congress does. Not saying it is legitimately under that clause, but that's where it will be.

 

[Ame®icano]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

Anyone who claims it falls under the General Welfare clause clearly doesn't understand it. If it gets passed it will fall under the Commerce Clause, like almost everything else Congress does. Not saying it is legitimately under that clause, but that's where it will be.

Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?

For instance, the existing HR3200 provides for access to our personal healthcare information, financial information, and the information of employer, physician, and hospital. That would be against 4th amendment and our right to privacy.

Another example is what they call a "tax" if you refuse to buy insurance. Why obvious fine or punishment is called a tax? No other reason but to avoid "due process clause" of the 5th amendment, so you cant even defend yourself in a court of law for a fine enforced on you.

And finally, there is 10th amendment mentioned in several threads...

 

[ihopehefails]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

Anyone who claims it falls under the General Welfare clause clearly doesn't understand it. If it gets passed it will fall under the Commerce Clause, like almost everything else Congress does. Not saying it is legitimately under that clause, but that's where it will be.

Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?

For instance, the existing HR3200 provides for access to our personal healthcare information, financial information, and the information of employer, physician, and hospital. That would be against 4th amendment and our right to privacy.

Another example is what they call a "tax" if you refuse to buy insurance. Why obvious fine or punishment is called a tax? No other reason but to avoid "due process clause" of the 5th amendment, so you cant even defend yourself in a court of law for a fine enforced on you.

And finally, there is 10th amendment mentioned in several threads...

I never thought of that before. Those politicians sure are getting sneakier.

 

[California Girl]

Let us not overlook the illegal aliens issue, folks. Obama can say 'no coverage' til the cows come home but it - if healthcare is Constitutional (which it isn't) then it is likely that refusing to cover illegal aliens is unconstitutional.

"We, the people" has already been deemed by the SC not to refer solely to citizens. I want it in black and white from the SC before I believe they won't be covered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

Sigh. RGS, you are not a constitutional scholar, so stop sounding off as if you have the slightest clue.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no authority in the Constitution. However our liberal buddies will once again claim there is a General welfare clause and claim it applies.

Just as there is no authority for Social Security, Medicare HUD, Department of Education or a myriad of other Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies and laws.

Sigh. RGS, you are not a constitutional scholar, so stop sounding off as if you have the slightest clue.

Hello pot.. this is kettle calling.. something about the color black

Whether RGS is a 'scholar' or not, does not take away from the fact that there is no constitutional authority for the things Pelosi and others want to empower the government with

 

[Steerpike]

Can they use "commerce clause" even if is against constitutional amendments?

Getting into Commerce Clause law, the bounds of it, and how it has been used over the decades, is an interesting topic. Let me just say here that, in theory, Congress can't pass a law under its powers via the Commerce Clause if that law is unconstitutional. The question from a practical standpoint is whether you can get a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) to say it is unconstitutional.

You mention a 4th amendment violation, for example. That's an interesting opinion to discuss, but I think it is unlikely a court would agree with you, and if they don't then whether you think it violates the 4th amendment isn't going to have much practical effect.

So it's not just a matter of what you or I might think about the Constitutionality of aspects of proposed health care legislation, it comes down to what the courts think about it. Think they're going to strike it down?

The counter to the 10th amendment argument is easy. The 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The answer that people will provide to the argument that the 10th Amendment argument is that the Constitution DOES delegate the power to regulate health care to Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. After all, the 10th Amendment on its face deals with powers NOT delegated.

I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have to say that Pelosi is in good company. When has Congress ever refrained from passing legislation just because they thought it was unconstitutional?

That said, the tax in particular won't stand up to court scrutiny, which is where this fight will end up if this turd ever passes. The other business, it goes with Hamilton's doctrine of assumed powers, meaning that gov't knows basically what it can and cannot do and so whatever they do is constitutional until a court says it isnt.

 

[jillian]

I think focusing time on the Constitutionality of health care reform is interesting academically, but a losing proposition from a practical standpoint. The reform won't be struck down if it passes. It will be interesting to see, however, what kind of process is put in place to handle the fines.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[rightwinger]

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.”

Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?

Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,

You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.

My vote goes with the latter

 

[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.

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


Look. If you're not going to ask a serious question, the Shrieker of the House of Ill Repute is just going to have to ignore you, without blinking,* and move on to the next question.


______________________
* She CAN'T blink.

 

[kyzr]

Nancy Pelosi is as dumb as a brick. Its that simple.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.”

Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?

Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,

You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.

My vote goes with the latter

Is the bitch incredulous when some left-wing blogger asks her a question?? No....

The bitch is evading a legit question...

 

[Ame®icano]

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.”

Pelosi is right to be incredulous over this wingnut idiocy. Who the hell is CNS???
When are you guys going to get serious?

Here is what you do. After the Healthcare bill passes, and it will. Go to your lawyer and bring up a lawsuit againt the US Government questioning the Constitutionality of the bill,

You will either end up looking like a hero or looking like an idiot.

My vote goes with the latter

Does it matter who the CNS is? Would you like to get the answer if you ask the same question?

Would you like to know the answer to this question? Do you know the answer?