Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Quote of the day, “Conyers’ constitutional ignorance” edition

Too bad it was his wife that went to prison.  After all, she’s not the one wreaking havoc on the entire nation.  Quoth the Detroit dolt:

During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”
 
Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

There’s just one small problem with conyers’ explanation:

The word “good” only appears once in the Constitution, in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch, not the powers of Congress. Article 3, Section 1 says in part: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

As far as “nothing unconstitutional”?

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

This dude is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he doesn’t even know the law of the land?  Wonderful.

Advertisements

March 23, 2010 - Posted by | Constitution, Detroit, health care, socialism

4 Comments »

  1. This dude is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he doesn’t even know the law of the land?

    Considering this is the same clown who said he couldn’t possibly read the bill and would need a legion of lawyers to read it for him, I’m not surprised.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | March 23, 2010

  2. Am I the only one who realizes that we (by “we” I mean those of us of the Conservative persuasion) are one stroke or heart attack away from another liberal/progressive on the Supreme Court?

    At present the court is split four to four with one that can go either way. Scalia and Thomas are getting up there in age, should either of them be replaced under the present administration, we would be SCREWED!!! The court would rule in favor of whatever crap O decides to shove down our throats, Constitutional or not.

    Comment by Lee | March 23, 2010

  3. Lee – you’re not alone. It’s a terrifying thought. Especially with the Marxists proclivity for appointing radicals. His pick will likely make Ginsburg appear Conservative.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | March 23, 2010

  4. “This dude is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and he doesn’t even know the law of the land?”

    Charlie Rangel was Chairman of Ways and Means. It seems to me that “unfit for duty” is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to the party of treason. If you follow the link, you will also see that it is nothing new.

    Comment by TheBad | March 23, 2010


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: