Follow up to my previous post.
Even many liberals turning against Obama on his decision to force Catholic institutions to violate their religious tenets in health care coverage
From the Washington comPost:
The White House sought Tuesday to soothe concerns over a controversial birth control rule that has led to Republican attacks and tension among close allies of the administration.
The efforts followed mounting criticism from Catholics and other faith leaders that a new rule requiring certain religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans violates their constitutional rights.
And they came as White House officials began hearing complaints from some of their own allies and advisers, who view the rule as a policy mistake that feeds what they see as an unfair charge from Republicans: that President Obama is anti-religion. (Yeah, really! It’s unfair to note that the guy is pro-abortion, thumbs his nose at the church and the Constitution to throw a bone to his moonbat base, etc. … but hey, where would you get the crazy idea that the guy is anti-religion or anything? – CL)
Even Chris Matthews? Dude, when Tingles says his boy’s wrong, that should make the front page of the comPost!
Normally, the Catholic church runs interference for the Democrats. I’m guessing that’s why Chairman Zero shoved this down their throats: he figured they’d stick with him and his party like they always do. Considering they backed ObamaCare in the first place, I’m not sure why they are surprised by this. Unless they thought they could get a waiver just like every other B.O.-friendly organization that also didn’t want to be subject to ObamaCare’s onerous requirements.
A typical liberal reaction to our Constitution…but shameful nonetheless. Details:
Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world. (Just so you know, you statist hag, that is NOT a bad thing…it’s a GREAT thing! – CL)
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
In other words, the very Constitution she has sworn to uphold is, in her own words, outdated. No d@mned wonder this wench looks to foreign law to mold her leftist decisions: she doesn’t think very highly of our own laws, statutory or constitutional. As the Spectator notes, while she was praising the freedoms found in our First Amendment, she was oblivious to the fact that those rights are far less protected in South Africa, Canada, and Europe than they are here. Maybe she’s racist for not wanting those rights extended to Egyptians?
If Uhhhhhhbama gets re-elected, he will look to find another one of these anti-American jackwagons to sit on the SCOTUS in the event of another vacancy. It is shameful that such a moron serves on the bench of the Supreme Court.
King Obama: Screw the Constitution, I’m making recess appointments in direct violation of Article II Section II!
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Presidents from both parties have historically used recess appointments…when the Senate is in recess! That’s kinda sorta, in a roundabout way, what a recess appointment is.
Well…the current Senate is not in recess. Yet Chairman Zero says “I don’t care to see it that way”, and so he has intentionally violated the Constitution he has sworn to uphold. Again. The man-child rules by fiat. He appointed his Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head, anti-business Richard Cordray, yesterday. His justification?
The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks.
Um…it IS NOT in recess. I missed the part in the Constitution where “effectively in recess” was located. If someone could point me to that, I’d appreciate it.
He didn’t stop with Cordray, though. He “recess” appointed three NLRB appointees, too.
Notes Leon Wolf:
Consider the astonishing timeline here – Obama submitted the names of his proposed appointments two weeks ago - two weeks ago - there has been no filibuster of the appointments; there hasn’t even been a cloture vote scheduled. The Senate hasn’t taken any action one way or another because there’s this holiday that happens in the last two weeks of December that some Americans celebrate, but Reid has kept the Senate in pro forma session, including regular meetings, to preserve the Senate’s prerogative to advise and consent on Obama’s nominees, as it is absolutely and beyond caveat the Senate’s prerogative to do. Thus, despite the fact that the Senate isn’t even dragging its feet on these appointments, and despite the fact that the Senate has been adamant that it is not in recess, Obama has arrogated to himself the power to declare the Senate in recess for them and short circuit the entire Constitutional process for Senate confirmation of Constitutional officers.
In other words, Reid allowed this Senate to be in a pro forma session.
So then Harry Reid, the man who said in 2007 that he was keeping the Senate in a pro forma session to prevent Bush’s recess appointments (and Bush respected the Constitution enough not to fight Reid), definitely has a problem with what B.O. is doing now, right?
“I support President Obama’s decision,” he [Reid] said in a statement.
Obama just made Reid and the other Senate Democrats his b#tch, and Reid is totally cool with that. Of course, he’s been polishing B.O.’s putz for three years, so why stop now?
ObaMao is doing this for two reasons: (1) He has nothing but contempt for the Constitution; (2) he wants a fight with Republicans in Congress in an election year. You know, so he can run on “Those evil Republicans are wanting to screw consumers in favor of big business, and they’re trying to use a ‘legal technicality’!” The MSM will, naturally, carry his water, ignoring all Constitutional constraints.
Is this really the road Democrats want to take? Next year, Republicans will control the Senate, and likely the White House. So the Dems want to use this club over Republican heads for less than a year while opening up the door for 4+ years of Republicans doing the same thing to them? Really?
Daily Caller has the story, as well as the audio. Excerpt:
f it was a joke, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue needs to polish her delivery.
Newly released audio contradicts the claims of Perdue’s press team that her call Tuesday for suspending Congressional election was a joke or hyperbole. In the recording, her tone is matter-of-fact and her comments are part of a serious speech.
“Listen to the Governor’s words: She wasn’t joking at all,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “The congressional Democrats are wildly unpopular in North Carolina, so she may have been trying to invent a solution to save their jobs from public accountability.”
“If it was a joke, what was the set-up?,” Lockwood adds. “What was the punch-line? Where was the pause for laughter? It took them three hours to say it was a ‘joke,’ but when that flopped it became ‘hyperbole.’ We’ll just call it an unconstitutionally bad idea.”
The spin from the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) is that the guv was “just kidding”. Seriously, the humor-impaired left is suddenly in tune with what is funny and what isn’t, and what is intended to be humor and what isn’t? Anywho, listen to the audio and judge for yourself.
I’m sure the goob(ernor) is worried mightily about her own hide and that of her fellow NC Democrats. Dems took a HUGE pounding in NC in 2010, and the state legislature turned red for the first time since Reconstruction. The new legislature is going to redraw districts in very red ways, too.
I’m not worried about elections being suspended because some leftist hayseed thinks they should be. No, this is just another example in an already-long list of them of leftists holding their own perceived intellect in such a delusional high regard and the intellect of the individual voter in such condescendingly low regard. Leftists know that their ways aren’t going to be embraced by Normal America, especially in the South, so they need to remove barriers to their socialist utopia…even/especially if the barriers are erected by the “great unwashed”.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) will have a conniption over this:
Painting herself as a “constitutional conservative” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told Sen. Jim DeMint’s forum Monday that if elected president she would look to get rid of the Department of Education, among other things.
“Because the Constitution does not specifically enumerate nor does it give to the federal government the role and duty to superintend over education that historically has been held by the parents and by local communities and by state governments,” she said, responding to a question by DeMint, a popular figure among the tea party movement.
Now I’ll admit that Bachmann is not my first, second, or even third choice among GOP prez hopefuls. That said, why would it be crazy to shiite-can the Dept. of Education?
First of all, there is no question that “one size fits all” when it comes to education is patently absurd. There is no way that D.C. can better manage schools than local and state governments can do.
Secondly, how did the republic survive before the Dept. of Ed was founded in 1980?
Thirdly, our nation’s test scores have dropped precipitously ever since D.C. created the behemoth. If you want to dismiss any cause-and-effect here, be my guest. But I won’t.
Finally, it’s clear that our Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to meddle in educational affairs of cities, counties, and states. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to educate your children or mine. Judging by how poorly educated our kids are in matters related to civics, I’d say that D.C. needs to butt out of molding our kids’ minds and let parents and local governments do our jobs. Everything D.C. touches turns to crap, anyway.
Obama? Puh-leeeze! As if the left or the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would ever go that far!
Nope, Cokie has uncovered the real source of our nation’s credit angst (via Newsbusters):
This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.
And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it’s divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance.
Un. Friggin’. Believable.
I don’t see why she’s worried about the Constitution, considering that she and her leftist ilk don’t pay attention to it anyway.
Wisconsin Democrats challenge newly drawn districts on creative (and amusing) constitutional grounds
Dude, it’s official: I have seen it all. Details:
A group of residents asked a federal court to throw out new legislative and congressional maps on Thursday, a day after lawmakers approved them.
“Under the legislation, Democrats have little chance of attaining and retaining a majority in either the Senate or the Assembly, or in the congressional delegation, giving them little ability to overcome minority status at any point over the next decade,” the lawsuit argues.
Read that bold part again, aloud, then grab a spatula to get your jaw off of the floor. That’s the actual legal argument in their lawsuit.
Just to clarify:
When the duly-elected state legislature does their constitutionally specified duties of redrawing legislative districts, the minority party sues because the majority party missed the part in the Constitution whereby the majority must consider the ability of the minority to put themselves back into the majority. Well, I must have missed that part of the Constitution, too, so if one of you fine folks can point that out to me, I’d be greatly appreciative.
So at no time in the history of the republic has a majority party ever drawn legislative districts in a way that they feel maximizes their electoral chances on a perennial basis? That’s never happened? That doesn’t always happen about, oh, every ten years or so?
Exit question: Can we file a suit in California, then, that says “You know, it’s not fair that San Fransicko and L.A. and Suckramento get to decide things in CA in such a way that a conservative politician and agenda won’t be voted in anytime soon”?
When he’s not busy comparing our soldiers to Pol Pot and Stalin, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) likes to pass the time Hispandering in a way that reveals his ignorance:
Durbin, while pooping up the DREAM Act (amnesty), said this:
When I look around this room, I see America’s future. Our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our Congressman, our Senators and maybe our President.
Lost on Durbin the Turban is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Time: You conservatives don’t understand the Constitution the way we brilliant liberals do. Conservative bloggers: Dude, you made 13 factual errors in your claims!
This is pure comedy gold!
See, Time wants you to know that liberals like them are totally educated when it comes to the Constitution. They’re so brilliant that they…commit at least thirteen verifiable errors in fact in their recent article, cleverly entitled “One Document, Under Seige“.
If the Constitution is “under seige”, it’s from the constitutional illiterates and lazy morons at Time.
You must read this blog post, which does an awesomely McAwesome job taking down the leftists at Time. Seriously, read it. Keep in mind, we’re not talking errors of interpretation, such as whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. We’re talking stuff like this:
False Claim #2: The Constitution is not law.
The relevant passage:
Originalists contend that the Constitution has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws. A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.
Proof that he is wrong: Again, the Constitution itself contradicts this claim. Article VI, Paragraph 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]
And of course in my long fisking piece, I cite several passages from Marbury v. Madison that is on point as well, but the Constitution is enough.
Time claims that the law of the land isn’t The Law of the Land!
False Claim #3: The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
The relevant passage:
In drafting the 14th Amendment, Congress was definitely not thinking about illegal immigration. At the time, the country needed a lot more immigrants, legal or otherwise. Congress was thinking more practically. It wanted to emancipate blacks and allow them to vote so that white Southern Democrats would not try to reverse the gains of the Civil War.
Proof that he is wrong: The amendment that emancipated the slaves was the thirteenth. (Duh.)
And notice for bonus points that he is conflating slaves and black people. Not all black people were slaves prior to the Civil War.
I guess all black people look alike to the pinkos at Time. And 13th, 14th…h3ll, it’s all the same, right?
The most egregious of these claims is Claim #1, which is that the Constitution doesn’t put any limits on the federal government. Read any single one of the Bill of Rights amendments, and you’ll see a ton of “Congress shall make no law…” and similar references…which are darned apparent of limits placed on the federal government to anyone with a cursory grasp of the English language.
We’ve always known that liberals don’t know a friggin’ thing about the Constitution, and they don’t care to, since they wipe their backsides with it on a daily basis. They quote it when they think it suits their needs, and as Time proves, they can’t even quote it correctly.
Feel free to dismiss leftists whenever they bring up the Constitution. Arguing with them about the Constitution is like arguing with a toddler about quantum physics: he doesn’t understand the words coming out of your mouth.
Ho. Ly. Shiite. Who needs SEALs, right?
Holder’s declaration came in a Thursday speech to hundreds of progressive lawyers, advocates, judges and students gathered at the American Constitution Society’s annual gala. “I know that – in distant countries, and within our own borders – there are people intent on, and actively plotting to, kill Americans,” he told his legal peers in the enthusiastic audience. “Victory and security will not come easily, and they won’t come at all if we adhere to a rigid ideology, adopt a narrow methodology, or abandon our most effective terror-fighting weapon – our Article III [civil] court system,” he declared to much applause.
I can see it now:
Muhammed: Hey, Ibrahim, let’s go blow up some infidels in America! Where to this time: NYC, LA, Miami, San Franistan?
Ibrahim: What, are you crazy? Have you SEEN what the Americans are doing? Dude, they’re mobilizing lawyers and judges and stuff!
Muhammed: Holy falafel! I mean, that sternly-worded U.N. Resolution was scary enough…but this? May Allah help us!
Ibrahim: Don’t fret yet, brother. I’ve got a call in to the ACLU on this. If anyone can stand up for our “rights”, it’s those guys. But dude, if the ACLU can’t shield us from those fearsome black-robed giants and intimidating Armani-clad attorneys, I don’t know who can!
Exit question: Quick show of hands here, but am I the only one who’s impressed that Eric Holder actually knew part of the Constitution? Someone check the forecast for Hell to see if it’s a little chilly.
Memo to Tea Party: Please, please primary this jack#ss!
Background: A FL pastor burns some Korans. The followers of “the religion of peace” react predictably: violence, murder, and outrageously outrageous outrage. The FL pastor refuses to accept responsibility for the reaction of the Muslim world.
Video clip here, but the offensive quote from Graham is this:
I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.
1. The First Amendment isn’t an “idea”, you moron. It’s a Constitutional right. Google it sometime.
2. Does anyone recall him threatening the Code Pinkos and the moonbatosphere during the last decade for using their First Amendment rights (however obnoxious the moonbats may be)? I don’t. But instead, he wants to threaten someone for ticking off the camelhumping jihadists of the Muslim world?
3. Is this amnesty shill trying to say that our Constitution ceases to exist during war time? As Allah asks, “Are we ‘at war’ only if troops are in the field? No Koran-burning, in other words, until the last U.S. serviceman has left Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya)?”
The Tea Party certainly didn’t do America any favors with Sharron Angle in NV and Christine O’DoneNothingInMyLife in DE. They did, however, do us a huge favor in KY with Rand Paul, in FL with Marco Rubio, and in UT with Mike Lee. Certainly if they field a non-whackjob in SC, the reliably red SC will send a real Republican to the Senate. If that happens, adios, Grahamnesty!
Hillary: Obama didn’t need Congressional approval to attack Libya, since we had the international community on board.
Her Highness, telling us that we passed John Kerry’s “global test”:
Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”
“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”
Three things here:
1. OK, could someone show me where the Constitution requires the president to declare war only with Congressional approval except in cases of other countries joining in the attack on another country? I must have slept through that in history class, because I don’t see such an exception anywhere!
2. Why is the Hilldawg talking about “unilateral” action by the U.S. in the case of Iraq, when the international coalition we had back then is twice the size of the international coalition we have in Libya right now? The fact is that Oba-Mao authorized an attack on Libya without Congressional consultation or approval, and he has less assistance there than we had in Iraq in 2003.
3. This is quite the reversal of stances for Shrillary, which I’m guessing has nothing to do with the fact that the Commie in Chief is a fellow Democrat!
Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Oh, and how’s about this bit of inspiration from the administration?
“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
“Limited”, huh? Defense Secretary Gates doesn’t share that sentiment:
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.
“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked
“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.
Glad to see the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Friggin’ wonderful.
Check this out:
President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.
“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said.
This is what disturbs me greatly about this situation…
The administration has, for two years, defended DOMA in court as being constitutional. Now, all of a sudden, B.O. has belatedly come to the conclusion that it is not constitutional. Regardless of which side of the issue you fall on, isn’t there something unsettling about the government taking a position of defense, and then unprompted by any court orders or subsequent legislation, the government comes to a total about-face and says “OK, we’ve been saying all along that it’s constitutional, but now, we’re going to say it’s not…we’ve been wrong all along”?
Exit question: Dare we to hope the administration will pull the same about-face on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of ObamaCare?
Federal judge (Clinton appointee) rules ObamaCare constitutional because Congress can regulate “mental activity”
Arguably the scariest ruling yet in the ObamaCare court circus. Details:
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler’s ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler’s ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate “mental activity”:
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power…However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that “there is little judicial guidance” on this question.
Apparently, “mental activity” is no longer a requirement to be a federal judge.
Got that? “Mental activity” can be regulated by Congress, which is something that the Founding Fathers obviously intended to be a proper federal role. For those of you on the left, the last part of the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Interestingly, remember when Chairman O got snippy with George Snuffalupagus (or whatever the h3ll his name is) about how ObamaCare’s individual mandate was a tax…then argued in court that Congress could issue the mandate because the Constitution allows Congress to tax? Yeah, the Kerryesque “it actually wasn’t a tax, before it was”? Well, even this Clinton judge rejected that notion, saying that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate our thoughts and that alone was reason enough to allow the mandate to stand.
Orwell just called. He asked if we still think he was paranoid for writing 1984.
Obama administration found in contempt of court order in Gulf moratorium case. Contempt next for ignoring ObamaCare ruling?
The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
Obama? Ignoring a court’s ruling? The hell you say! What kind of crazy wingnut conspiracy theory is that?
In his Jan. 31 Final Summary Declaratory Judgment, Judge Vinson, in the district court for the Northern District of Florida, said “it is hereby DECLARED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) … is unconstitutional.”
And in the complete ruling, Vinson wrote that “there is a long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, this declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.’”
Paging Darrell Issa…
Chuck the Schmuck, noted attorney and, apparently, constitutional expert extraordinaire (video at link, partial transcription below):
So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some.
I wonder if any of his handlers let him know that the three branches of the federal government are the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. Phil Hare just called from the unemployment line to say “Dude, even I knew that!”
And this schmuck has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution?
Our government schools have done quite a job over the last several decades of degrading our kids’ knowledge of the founding legal basis of our republic. Apparently, running for office for some of these people hasn’t helped. Details:
When the Republican House leadership decided to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the U.S. Constitution, the decision raised complaints in some quarters that it was little more than a political stunt. The New York Times even called it a “presumptuous and self-righteous act.”
That might be true, if you could be sure that elected officials actually know something about the Constitution. But it turns out that many don’t.
In fact, elected officials tend to know even less about key provisions of the Constitution than the general public.
The survey asks 33 basic civics questions, many taken from other nationally recognized instruments like the U.S. Citizenship Exam. It also asks 10 questions related to the U.S. Constitution.
So what did we find? Well, to put it simply, the results are not pretty.
Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to “uphold and protect” the U.S. Constitution.
But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:
- Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
- Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war — 54 percent of the general public knows that.
- Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase “wall of separation” appears in Thomas Jefferson’s letters — not in the U.S. Constitution — compared with 19 percent of the general public.
- And only 57 percent of those who’ve held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for “training those aspiring for higher political office.”)
Overall, our sample of elected officials averaged a failing 44 percent on the entire 33-question test, 5 percentage points lower than the national average of 49 percent. …
Phil Hare was unavailable for comment.
We routinely see our elected officials, especially at the federal level, ignore the Constitution. I guess we now know why: they haven’t the first friggin’ clue what it says.
From Time’s piece called “The Cult of the Constitution” (hmmm, wonder where they stand on the Constitution?):
After much hullabaloo, the 112th Congress kicked off its second day as promised: by reading the Constitution aloud on the House floor for the first time ever, per a chamber historian. Except not all of it. The bipartisan recitation omitted several critical passages, including the three-fifths compromise.
There’s a reason that the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn’t read, you dolts: it isn’t in the Constitution anymore! That’s like calling Charlie Crist a Republican, though he isn’t anymore. Subsequent amendments rendered the Compromise moot and thus stricken from the text. Amending the Constitution without judicial activism is possible? Who knew?
What the article actually describes: The “notable passages” left out of the reading are the parts of the Constitution which are no longer part of the Constitution — that is, the parts which have been replaced/written out by subsequent amendments, and are therefore not in fact “part of the Constitution,” except in a purely historical way. In the same way that two legs may be said to be part of the history of a one-legged man.
If the left actually read the Constitution, as it exists today, they might be better informed in slinging their stones. Not that being better informed ever stopped them from opining stupidly before, so why start now? Hell, Phil Hare got booted from office by telling everyone he didn’t care what the Constitution had to say about ObamaCare.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Not a bad way to kick off the legislative year, no? Excerpt:
A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various “czars” in the Obama administration.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.
The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.
The bill defines a czar as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.
Yes, I know Bush and Reagan also used czars. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. The Constitution doesn’t permit czars, period.
Exit prediction: Reid won’t let this get to the Senate floor, which is odd, if you think about it. This bill basically reinforces the Senate’s right to advise and consent when it comes to appointees, which you would think the Senate would appreciate and embrace. But Reid is such a partisan hack that he doesn’t mind ceding Senatorial authority to a Democrat president. I don’t have to wonder what his reaction would be if the president were a Republican.
Imagine the shock, shock, I experienced in discovering that Democrats in the Senate (and the idiot Republicans who voted for this bill) have no real knowledge of the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. Details:
A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.
By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.
The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.
Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill.
As Ed notes…
Now what? The House will either block the bill entirely or pass its own version of it. The latter option will mean that Reid will have to hold a vote to reopen debate on the bill, and will need unanimous consent to limit that debate. Otherwise, it could take the rest of the legislative calendar in the Senate to move the bill before the session ends and the bill has to be reintroduced. Even if the House cooperated, the bill could later be challenged in court as being procedurally deficient.
Considering that the national abortion known as ObamaCare is clearly unconstitutional and yet passed the Senate (and House) anyway, this latest public display of constitutional ignorance shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. But hey, it’s nice to know that Democrats are screwing up so badly in their last throes of power that they can inflict little additional damage to the country beyond that which they have already inflicted. How unsurprising that in their final days of power, their main preoccupation isn’t jobs or the economy, but in expanding government power and regulations.
Updates will be flowing throughout the evening. I’ll probably hit the hay around midnight or so, since those crazy people that sign my paychecks expect me to show up tomorrow and do stuff. Crazy b#st#rds! (For those of you on the left, google “paycheck” if the term confuses you.)
UPDATE 7:45 PM EST: Rand Paul wins KY Senate race over Jack Conway. Aqua Buddha hardest hit. Also, Rob Portman wins OH Senate seat vacated by RINO George Voinovich by beating Lee Fisher (D). Pickup news: Dan Coats beats liberal Brad Ellsworth for Evan Bayh’s vacated IN Senate seat. +1 GOP pickup.
UPDATE 8:00PM EST: The AP is calling the FL Senate race for Marco Rubio! Most elections, I vote against someone, but with Rubio, I enthusiastically voted for him. Two man-crushes now: Rubio and Chris Christie (I still like women, though!). Governor Citrus’ pathetic career comes to a bitter end, though I’m sure Willy Wonka will put him back to work in the chocolate factory.
UPDATE 8:10 PM EST: The left had hoped to pick up Senate seats in NH and MO (in addition to OH, mentioned above), but it didn’t happen. Republicans Ayotte in NH and Blunt in MO hold serve. #sshat Alan Grayson is getting pounded early in FL, which means he’s probably got MSNBC on speed dial and has an itchy dialing finger.
Also, Palin’s gal Christine O’Donnell got creamed by the Bearded Marxist in DE (enjoy Mike Castle’s RINO scalp!). It didn’t have to be that way, people.
UPDATE 8:30 PM EST: Blanche Lincoln gets blasted by John Boozman. Hey, Blanche, how’d that ObamaCare vote work out for you? You’re welcome, Kevin. +2 GOP pickup.
UPDATE 8:32 PM EST: Other “Blue Dogs” have fallen. Suzanne Kosmas traded her vote on ObamaCare for some NASA pork, but she’s done. VA’s Tom Perriello won narrowly in a reddish district in ’08, but his Lap Dog votes on ObamaCare, cap and tax, and Porkulus cost him this seat. His fellow VA Dem Rick Boucher just lost, as did Glenn Nye.
UPDATE 9:35 PM EST: Another FL Democrat falls: Allen Boyd in FL-2, in the Panhandle. Hard to be a “Blue Dog” when you’re adding ObamaCare’s trillions in debt, huh? Anywho, Barney Frank wins, and we have a Senate pickup in ND, as John Hoeven takes Byron Dorgan’s old seat. +3 GOP pickup.
UPDATE 10:20 PM EST: FL governor’s race still up in the air. Scott (R) up by 4% with about 75% of the votes in (and Democrat-heavy south FL isn’t finished), nowhere near ready to be called. NM will elect a Republican Latina governor. Also, the Senate is off the table, but the House is ours, baby! Chris Matthews’ leg hardest hit.
Olbermann has a hard time finding black people at Tea Party rallies, so perhaps he’ll have an easier time finding Tim Scott, the newly elected black Republican Congressman from SC-1. He’ll be in the Capitol, douche.
If retired Marine Allen West (no relation to Batman) beats Ron Klein in FL-22, that will be two black Republicans in the House. If Ryan Frazier comes from behind to win in CO-7, that would be three black Republicans. If those two men lose, can we ask why Democrats hate black people?
UPDATE 10:40 PM EST: McCain’s buddy Russ Feingold (D-WI) falls to businessman Ron Johnson. +4 GOP pickup.
Also, SC elects Palin’s gal Nikki Haley as governor. Haley endured mudslinging, especially unfounded rumors of an affair (and if you saw the dude who accused her of sleeping with him, you’d know it was a lie, as the guy was uglier than Helen Thomas chasing a parked car…and catching it.)
Stupak mortgaged his career for ObamaCare, and his seat just went to Republican Dan Banishek.
UPDATE 11:00 PM EST: Remember this guy? Phil Hare (D-IL), who said he didn’t care about the Constitution and that the deficit was a “myth”? Yeah, well now his career his a myth, as he just fell.
Still waiting on FL governor. 83% in, Scott up by 3% with South FL coming in.
UPDATE 11:40 PM EST: AP calls it for Pat Toomey. +5 GOP pickup.
UPDATE 11:59 PM EST: FL governor’s race still not decided. 91% of the votes in, Scott up by 2%, not done yet.
AP calls IL Senate for Mark Kirk. Obama’s old seat, in Republican hands! +6 GOP pickup.
Allen West did defeat Ron Klein in FL-22. Predicted MSM headline: Two black Republicans going to Congress, blacks hardest hit.
Votes out west being counted, but Californiastan votes for that senile relic Jerry Brown for governor, as well as Senator Ma’am, thus proving that they have no interest in resolving their economic despair anytime soon. Don’t know any more, I’m off to bed.
UPDATE 09:39 AM EST: FL governor’s race still not decided. 99% of the precincts are in, with Republican Rick Scott clinging to a 1% 53,000 vote lead, and about 66 precincts in heavily Democrat Palm Beach County remaining. If Scott’s lead holds and stays above 27,000, he avoids the state-mandated automatic recount. However, since Sink is married to ambulance chaser Bill McBride (recipient of Jeb Bush’s buttkicking in 2002), I wouldn’t be shocked if her side sues in the event of a loss.
UPDATE 10:49 AM EST: The FL governor’s race appears to be over. Alex Sink just conceded to Republican Rick Scott. It was very close, but in the end, the votes just weren’t there. And while that inconvenience doesn’t always stop Dems from finding/creating more, I guess Sink concluded that Scott’s win was outside the margin of fraud.
Also, don’t look now, but the nepot from AK (Princess Murkowski) looks like she just might pull off her write-in bid to get back to DC. Absentee ballots and overseas ballots have to be counted, and they did swing the 2008 Senate election to Democrat Mark Begich, so anything’s possible, I guess. But it’s not looking good for Republican Joe Miller.
When it’s not Phil Hare (D-IL) telling us that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says, it’s this jackwagon:
“We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said at a debate Wednesday. He was commenting on the Citizens United v. FEC decision.
Notice that the ones who are openly contemptuous of the Constitution are all Democrats? They take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, right before they begin to summarily ignore it. Why, it’s almost as if a Democrat’s word doesn’t mean anything! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Just to recap: Man-made global “warming” is a verifiable fact, but $13+ trillion in debt is a right-wing myth. Got it. Thanks for the clarification, dude:
In case you don’t recognize Hare, he’s the tool that told us during the passage of ObamaCare that he didn’t care what the Constitution had to say about what he was and wasn’t allowed to legislate.
Phil Hare is channeling his inner Chip Diller:
For those of you on the left, “Constitution” refers to that pesky document that forms the framework of this country’s government. It’s the document that prohibits the government from compelling people to buy a product or service, that allows citizens to keep and bear arms, etc. Feel free to Google it some time.
Crist: You know how I flip-flopped on support of ObamaCare? I was just getting warmed up on flip-flops!
I know the tourists here in FL don flip-flops in the summer heat, but our citrus-skinned Oompa Loompa governor is showing the tourists how we do things in the Sunshine State! Next topic for Crist’s flip-flop? A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Details:
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist appeared to backtrack from statements he made regarding same-sex marriage during a CNN interview Sunday, saying in a statement that he does not support a Constitutional ban on the practice.
The comments appear at odds with what the Florida Senate candidate told CNN’s Ed Henry on State of the Union, during which he expressed continued support for a ban on same-sex marriage.
“I feel the same way, yes, because I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will. But I do believe in tolerance. I’m a live and let live kind of guy, and while I feel that way about marriage, I think if partners want to have the opportunity to live together, I don’t have a problem with that,” said Crist when asked about his stance against same-sex marriage when he ran for governor four years ago.
“When it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution. I believe it is between a man and woman, but partners living together, I don’t have a problem with,” added Crist, the former Republican-turned-Independent who is leading the three-way Senate race in most recent polls (um, no…he’s not. – CL) and is counting on significant support from Democratic and independent voters to eek out a victory.
In a statement released later Sunday, Crist said he in fact is against a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage and was instead only offering his support for a state ban on the practice.
“I was not discussing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, which I do not support, but rather reaffirming my position regarding Florida’s constitutional ban that I articulated while running for governor,” he said in the statement.
Read the transcript. Ed Henry asks him twice about supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Charlie’s lying through his teeth (again), and trying to have it both ways (again). Whether you support a constitutional ban on gay marriage or not, fine…but I suspect each of you probably feel strong enough about it one way or the other that you’re not going to shift directions multiple times!
But wait…there’s more! From NRO:
Miami Herald: “Gov. Charlie Crist is not joining his rivals for the U.S. Senate, Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek, this Sunday on MSNBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’”
“The governor has long planned Labor Day events, when he’ll be out talking to working families,’’ said Crist spokesman Danny Kanner.
Of course. Those working families require the entire day; clearly, they wouldn’t understand if Crist took one half hour out of his morning to appear, via satellite if necessary, with the other candidates.
Oh, by the way, there’s nothing currently listed for Sunday on the Crist campaign web site events page.
Ed remembers that Chuck blasted Rubio early in the GOP primary for not debating him at the time. Apparently, now it’s fine to duck debates. Don’t like Charlie’s positions? Simply wait a few minutes, and you’re bound to find him espousing a position you like…though no guarantees as to how long that position of his will last, m’kay?
Seriously, this dude’s a friggin’ joke.
Exit question: With Gallup showing a 10% GOP edge in the generic ballot question, an all-time high in Gallup’s history, you think maybe Crist is second-guessing picking this year of all years to bolt the party he’s crapped on for so many years?
Pe-loco: The First Amendment is soooooo 1787! Details:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday. She told San Francisco’s KCBS radio:
“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”
San Fransicko, you MUST be proud!
Exit question: So is she advocating investigating Harry Reid?
Awesome column found at Investors Business Daily! You MUST read the whole thing. Appetizer:
The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.
People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”
Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.
Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.
Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.
Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.
Scary? Encouraging? Both?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett