Quote of the day, “Pelosi’s constitutional ignorance” edition
It’s always been scary that San Fran Nan was in the House, much less Speaker of it. To have such a profound ignorance of the Constitution she has sworn to protect is outrageous. Details:
CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
Notes Gateway Pundit:
Or, in other words, the Pelosi-Obama regime can force you to buy burnt monkey droppings if they want to.
Or any other product, for that matter. How soon until the feds require that we buy cars from Government Motors?
Her claim that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution would be hilarious were she not (a) a sworn protector of the Constitution (well, “officially” anyway) and (b) not second in line to the presidency. By her “logic” (and I do use that term oh so loosely), Congress can compel you and me to buy anything. Is that really what the Founding Fathers wrote or intended? The only money that Congress can constitutionally compel us to pay is in the form of taxes. A “health insurance mandate” doesn’t count.
Also, considering that each state’s health insurance industries are contain within the state (thanks to Congress’ prohibition of allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines), what we’re talking about here is intrastate commerce, not interstate. As such, Congress has no Interstate Commerce authority to force us to buy health insurance, or any other darned thing for that matter.
3 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- February 2012 (10)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
- May 2011 (34)
- April 2011 (30)
- March 2011 (40)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
“To have such a profound ignorance of the Constitution she has sworn to protect”
Sure she swore to protect the constitution, but she didn’t really expect anybody to believe it. Afterall, she had good intentions of protecting SOME of the constitution thingees, and with dems intentions count.
Comment by tnjack | October 23, 2009
Sadly, the Supreme Court back in the 1930s decided that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate any activity that has an effect on interstate commerce, no matter how minimal or tangential that effect may be. There is a case (please don’t ask for a citation, ConLaw was over a decade ago) that says, essentially, the government can order you to sell the food you grow for your own consumption because withholding a few bushels of wheat or apples would have an effect on local commerce and, therefore, an effect on interstate commerce.
Remember, Congresscritters like Pelosi are the people who believe the phrase “right to keep and bear arms” means they can prohibit firearms ownership, while simultaneously they can find heretofore undiscovered Constitutional rights to same-sex marriage and abortion.
Comment by PabloD | October 23, 2009
Like your blog, hope you don’t mind adding me it to my blogroll. I was just watching TV and Newt was on. He’s smart and articulate and it just occurred to me – Pelosi now is speaker! What a contrast. http://oldhardhead.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/constitutionality-of-health-insurance-mandates/
Cheers! Oldhardhead
Comment by oldhardhead | October 26, 2009