Comments on: Quote of the day, “Pelosi’s constitutional ignorance” edition http://crushliberalism.com/2009/10/23/quote-of-the-day-pelosis-constitutional-ignorance-edition/ Liberalism: Why think when you can "feel"? Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:20:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: oldhardhead http://crushliberalism.com/2009/10/23/quote-of-the-day-pelosis-constitutional-ignorance-edition/#comment-12009 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:17:52 +0000 http://crushliberalism.com/?p=5658#comment-12009 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

]]> By: PabloD http://crushliberalism.com/2009/10/23/quote-of-the-day-pelosis-constitutional-ignorance-edition/#comment-12003 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:40:12 +0000 http://crushliberalism.com/?p=5658#comment-12003 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.

]]> By: tnjack http://crushliberalism.com/2009/10/23/quote-of-the-day-pelosis-constitutional-ignorance-edition/#comment-12000 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:00:02 +0000 http://crushliberalism.com/?p=5658#comment-12000 “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.

]]>