A perfect demonstration of Democratic Party attitude towards the supreme law of the land, the document they swore before God to uphold. Shorten this a little and you have 90% of Republican ads for the November mid-terms.
The Constitution doesn’t authorize him to take control of one-sixth of the economy? He doesn’t care. Also, he finds authorization in the section about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Which is in the Declaration of Independence and not the US Constitution.
The “him” in question is Representative Phil Hare (D-Ill), who will probably be regretting his outburst in front of a rolling camera. He ends up yelling at his constituents, complaining about how many hours he works, and then finally walking out of the building and into a waiting care. All the while ignoring questions about constitutional powers.
As they say, Hare committed the ultimate Washington gaffe: He told the truth. He and his fellow Democrats simply don’t care what powers Congress is permitted under the Constitution. They don’t care if they’ve been granted the consent of the governed. They’re just going to do whatever they want. Because they’re smarter and better than you.
Good point from Allahpundit:
All things considered, this clip’s more depressing than the already legendary Hank Johnson clip from last night. Like Madam Speaker, not only does he regard the novel and crucial constitutional issue involved here to be beside the point, he almost seems irritated to be asked about it. Reason 8,293,511 why Americans now feel such utter contempt for their representatives.
Indeed.
2. April 2010 at 2:29 pm
When people say, “I don’t care about the Constitution.”, they are frequently using a shortcut in language to mean they don’t believe there is an implied threat that the Constitution will conflict with an issue.
Often, this website allows its writers to use the shortcut “Obamacare” meaning, the National Healthcare Reform Act that was approved by both houses of the congress and signed into law by the president.
Using that term has a snot of cynicism about it, but as a short cut term it can be understood by readers to differenciate that recently approved act from Medicare, Medicaide and other medical care acts.
If the term is used strictly for dismissive or derogatory purposes, then there must be concern about how lightly we take a national health program.
2. April 2010 at 7:14 pm
Wow, are you dizzy from that spin? I mean, really, you might want to sit down for a moment to regain your balance.
He didn’t just say he doesn’t care. He went on about how what the Constitution says doesn’t matter if there are children suffering. He then claimed authorization in a clause that comes from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution.
And finally he walked out, ignoring questions from his constituents.
And no, there’s no concern about how seriously we take a “national health program”. It’s a disgrace that Americans don’t want. It should be attacked, derided, and then repealed.