Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) thinks the Constitution justifies Obamacare’s individual mandate that people must buy health insurance. Now according to Rep Lewis, the Constitution’s reference to the “pursuit of happiness” specifically justifies that mandate. There’s just one, BIG problem, the pursuit of happiness isn’t in the Constitution.
“Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness,”
That 'Pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, sir.
Lets take a further look at his comments, shall we?
"We require people to have auto insurance, state by state."
One note here, Rep Lewis... NOT everyone is required to purchase auto insurance. Those who don't drive and those who don't drive on public roads. It's a safety issue also.
”You go to the 14th Amendment–it’s equal protection under the law and we have not repealed the 14th Amendment.People have a right to have health care. It’s not a privilege but a right.”
Ummm, Sir, the 14th Amendments 'equal protection of the law' means no state can say 'This law protects you, but it doesn't protect your friend/mother/father/etc. Laws must be applied equally by the state.
The 14th Amendment: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
OF the law, not BY or Under the law.
So there is nothing in the Constitution that says healthcare is a right
I think Rep Lewis needs to be schooled on the Constitution, folks
Mark, Lewis is but just one who needs schooling sadly.
The crazy thing is that we in the Tea Party movement were beaten over the heads by liberals with comments berating us about wanting to pay attention to the Constitution. And now that that very document pertains as we suggested it did the liberals all of the sudden think they know it and want to talk about it?
The problem of course for the liberals is that the Constitution was passed in 1788 and Obamacare in 2010 and they do not know what is in either. Not knowing the former is why they cannot defend the latter.
If this guy were any dumber he'd need to be watered once a week lol
"and they do not know what is in either"
One excellent point, Christopher.
Comments by the left are using the 14th Amendment and quote the constitution, but if you are not paying attention, they'll change one word to win there argument. As did Rep Lewis when he change 'of' and replaced it 'under'. One word can change the meaning of a sentence.
Glad to see some of those on the right in congress are carrying a copy of the constitution in their pocket.
I guess Rep Lewis must of missed the first day at class of the 112th when the constitution was read out loud on the house floor.
This is why the Speaker had done this.
Guess they should have had a test afterwords.
I just craped my pants laughing at the watering joke. That was as funny as I've heared. Thanks for the laugh.
Good one Mark.
I caught the same thing on Chris's blog a few weeks back and showed where the right was using the Declaration instead of the constitution.
Unfortunatly, using the words of the Constitution instead of the SC's interpretation
of it can lead you of the path of correctness. Even republicans have accepted certain understandings of the words as decided by the courts which aren't there.
Citizens United is just one such case. a Strict constructionist would have to admit that the founders never intended for the constitutional rights to apply as a whole to business, only people. Most don't however.
So i'll give John Lewis a pass till Alito, Scalia, John Roberts and ole "pubic hair" Thomas all learn the Constitution better.
Joe, you and I have been around the block on this Citizens United decision before. And a strict constitutionalist would agree with this decision because the strict wording does not point to people, nor corporations in freedom of speech as it does say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
When Lewis says "equal protection under the law" when it says "equal protection OF the law" it changes the whole meaning. Jackson Lee made the same mistake on the house floor during the debate. AND she carries a copy of the Constitution around with her.
Mark, you and i will always differ on that, because i feel the inclusion of corporations isn't in the intent of the 1st Amendments and to this i point to the entire text.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is clearly written that these rights are given to PEOPLE as it states. And i contend that corporations have been given the entire amendment outside of strict constructionist views. If they weren't then corporations would have no legal standing to sue the government (the redress of grievances), and the government would be allowed to restrict their assembly, i.e. multi-company lobbying groups, the chamber of commerce etc.
Because clearly the right to free assembly is given to the people not the business.
And i am not sold on the mandate theory of the left. I believe that anyone who wishes to suffer without buying health care is perfectly within their right too. They should however accept that the government will use tax dollars to fund health care and that they should expect no breaks. So again i don't believe in mandates.
Joe, let examine the text, shall we.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
"or abridging the freedom of speech"
key word here -or-, no reference to'people' there.
"or of the press"
Key word here -or-, Press doesn't refer to people but corporation own press newspaper and networks.
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Key word here -or- this does mention people, but in no means does it refer to the previous sentences, nor "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Key word -and- to be included to the previous sentence
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
These are right of everyone, including unions.
Are you saying unions don't have these rights, either? Because I do believe they do have these rights.
"however accept that the government will use tax dollars to fund health care "
Just like tax dollars you pay on your property goes to pay for public schools(yes I know MI doesn't any more, but other parts of the nation still do), however some reap no benefit from it as they have no children in these schools and use of property tax dollar to pay for it should not be allow.
Usually in this country when you pay out money, you get something in return.
Neither(schools or healthcare) is the case here.
Joe, 'ole "pubic hair" Thomas', I haven't heared that since my high school days in the Detroit area.
Then, that was used in context of a racist remark about a black person and their nappy type of hair on their head.
I can't imagine just what context you are using it in, so I guess, (by the 'standards' of the left) welcome to the Tea Party!
Amazing. You can apologize to me later.
Because you can't remember that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of saying, "Who has pubic hair on my Coke?" you can't fathom the context of my "pubic hair" Thomas blast?
Try Google next time...Type in Thomas, pubic hair. You'll get these for context.
Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and Pubic Hair on a Can of Coke ...
Gifts of Speech - Anita Hill
Testimony in the Thomas hearings from Washington, D.C. on Friday .... his desk
to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has pubic hair on my Coke?
So instead of suggesting i am a bigot, you could see where i was coming from.
to borrow a great line from a movie..
I said you could apologize later. It's later, Adams
First off. I made my point clear enough and i don't believe its going to change. So we can agree to disagree then right?
Second, I don't believe that Unions have the same rights as people do.
So you are saying is that only individuals have the rights of the constitution. All others forms are null and void.
This attitude is what the 111th had, but in a more harsher attitude and it pissed of the country.
We, meaning left right, might have our differences and compromise, but when it comes to the constitution thats were we are to draw the line of compromise.
You say 'strict constitutionalist'. The constitution is the constitution. Word for word it's the supreme document of the land that all should adhere to.
No fudging this document.
Joe, frequently, you come on this blog and spin the postings to fit your liberal POV. You post comments on this blog blasting others who you claim are Partisan and do not quantify or put their comments in context.
Now, you make a ‘partisan’ comment (“So i'll give John Lewis a pass till Alito, Scalia, John Roberts and ole "pubic hair" Thomas all learn the Constitution better”) and then do not use any quantifiable facts or context for a ‘degrading’ comment of an accomplished Justice and I’m suppose to read your mind or research the internet to find out as to what you meant?
Here’s some research:
In October of 1991, Justice Thomas was dragged through a ‘humiliating show of racism’ and ‘slander’ and ‘unfounded accusations’ by the left:
Museum TV states: ‘During the three days of televised hearings, the Senators and the viewing public heard testimony from both Hill and Thomas, as well as their supporters. Hill referred to specific incidents of Thomas' behavior, including repeated requests for dates and references to pornographic material. Thomas vehemently denied Hill's allegations and responded with outrage, at one point by calling the hearings "a national disgrace...a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves." So adamant was each sides' accounts that many observers in the press labeled the hearings an example of "He Said, She Said," with both parties offering such vastly differing recollections of events that many wondered if the hearings could ever reveal the truth’.
The Constitutional Alamo states: “I have reproduced nearly all of Kennedy's final speech here. It is ridiculous in its assertion, but no more ridiculous than the trumped charges the Democrats made against Justice Thomas. When they found that Thomas would not be bullied or replaced through more civil questioning, they found a willing accomplice to besmirch his character. This simple confirmation hearing became a circus of grandiose proportions, thanks to Kennedy and his ilk”.
The FoxNews states: “After comparing him to "Hitler" and characterizing him as an "Uncle Tom," a vocal group of members of Hawaii's American Civil Liberties Union convinced their board to reject an invitation for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to participate in an upcoming conference”.
Ultimately, the Senate voted 52-48 in favor of Thomas' confirmation. 2 Republicans are included in the 48 that are against Thomas.
Joe, by today’s standards, it looks like a lot of racist activity from the left.
I don’t know your racial tolerance and I didn’t call you a bigot. I pointed out how that phrase fits another assumption and I stated I don’t know ‘your context’ and ‘welcome to the Tea Party’, because after all, we all know the Tea Party isn’t racist.
What has happened here is you laid it out there for ridicule and I pointed it out.
Since we know that bigots have been involved with Tea Party members and their campaigns i will take it that you intended to question my character.
One would not raise the specter of possible context if one did not intend to create the possibility that it existed.
You can hide behind the semantical innocence of what you did, but the reality is you put a possibility out there in complete disregard for what the true context was. Of course you can't be blamed if people seize on it and disregard my true reasons. I'm not a fool, brother.
I hide behind nothing, you put the possiblities out there through an unreasonble snipe, deal with it!
Your hypocrisy concerning the Tea Party vs the blatant racism by the Left leaves you exposed.
Tea Party racism is a figment of the lefts hate filled imagination, while the facts of the left's racisim is documented.
In another POV on context, one raises the specter of context when none was provided. I appreciate you clearing that up.
"we know that bigots have been involved with Tea Party members"
That right there just discredited your comment. You DON'T know, because it's speculation and the idea draw in some peoples minds by the left to discredit the TPP.
All because we have an black president... but we also had a female Speaker and old white guy for Senate majority leader that the TPP spoke out against, also.
Again i will repeat anyone interested in solely finding out the answer to a question would ask the question without first making a very descriptive remark about what it could be. Like this.
Adams says, "Joe, what is the context for that?"
Joe says, "Adams it refers to the testimony of Anita Hill and the pubic hair on a can of coke accusation."
Of another example...
Joe says, "Chris, could you post the link."
Joe says, "Chris, people often don't post the link because they don't want the person to find the source or they took someones work without acknowledging it. I can't imagine why you didn't post the link."
So now that everyone here knows what you did even though they won't admit it, can you see the difference? You didn't ask for the context you actually implied that i was a bigot. Yes you did.
AdamsPatriot said...I can't imagine just what context you are using it in, so I guess, (by the 'standards' of the left) welcome to the Tea Party!
Notice that you never ASKED what the context was in your answer.
Your right on one thing, it was a partisan blast. Even someone as thoughtful as i sometimes engages in petty partisanship withe the rest of the posters here. Its hard to rise above the constant attacks and sometimes i don't.
As for my reference to pubic hair, i thought as active as you and Mark were that you'd be up on things. Guess one of the talking heads must not have mentioned it in a long time.
"I can't imagine just what context you are using it in, so I guess, (by the 'standards' of the left) welcome to the Tea Party!
Notice that you never ASKED what the context was in your answer."
Joe, you stuck your neck on for that ridicule. It's not up to Adams to ask the question, it's up to you to clarify your remarks when anyone sees a comment being taken differently then you had intended.
Joe, I find your retort here both amusing and hypocritical as with your comments on the next blog post: 'The Ten Poorest Cities In The USA'.
Apparently, you don't, in the remotest sense, practice what you preach.
Post a Comment