Audio: Shea-Porter says “Constitution didn’t cover everything”

posted at 10:55 am on August 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Perhaps it’s too much for elected officials in Washington to understand the document to which they swear an oath of loyalty. It certainly proves too much for Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, who responds to an inartfully posed question about the constitutionality of ObamaCare by offering a very odd response. Shea-Porter says that ObamaCare is constitutional because … er … the Constitution doesn’t cover everything … or something:

Caller Dennis from Manchester asked Shea-Porter during a broadcast on WGIR radio, “I just wanted to know where it says in the Constitution that the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party for that matter, can pretty much do what they’re trying to do?”

“I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads,” Shea-Porter replied. “It also doesn’t say the government should make sure the drugs are safe. It doesn’t say the government should look at airplanes to make sure they are safe to get on. It doesn’t say we should have a police force in Manchester.”

“So, the Constitution did not cover everything,” Shea-Porter concluded.

Where to start with this foolishness? Shea-Porter apparently labors under the mistaken belief that Congress runs everything in the US, instead of the proper role of Congress, which is to run the federal government.  The Constitution sets their power and circumscribes it rather clearly in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9 of the Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the states or to the people, underscoring the explicit limitation on Congressional power:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, when the Constitution does not “cover” a subject, it explicitly and expressly intends for Congress and the federal government to butt out.

The examples Shea-Porter gives are equally clueless.  Drugs, roads, and airplanes fall fairly understandably under the interstate commerce clause of Article I Section 8, although roads in particular have led to a chronic abuse of power by Congress.  Transportation bills fund all sorts of pork-barrel projects — it’s perhaps the most pork-filled of annual appropriations — and fund projects that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

However, Manchester does not require Congressional approval to establish a police force.  Congress has no authority to approve or block the establishment of local and state law-enforcement agencies, a fact someone who’s served in Congress should understand.  That argument actually works against Shea-Porter; America has had local law enforcement without Congressional intervention for the entirety of its history, and that’s managed to work out well, perhaps because of the lack of Congressional interference.

Maybe we should require elected representatives to take and pass a civics class before assuming office.  Clearly, Shea-Porter is in desperate need of one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

LOL. MN envy?

JiangxiDad on August 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the words “Minnesota” and “envy” in the same sentence.

Makes my day!

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

According to the guys who wrote the document, the “Interstate Commerce Clause” was only there to give congress the authority to settle trade disputes between the various states.

In their day, anyone who tried to claim that this clause gives congress the authority to regulate airplanes and set a minimum wage would have caused the founders to have set set upon, and after being thoroughly beaten, carted of to the nearest house for the terminally stupid.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but in 1876 we started down the path when the US Gov bought land for a post office.

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Thus another starting date for the unraveling of the constitution as the founders intended. I intrepret this response as if the federal government has a post office in your town and we deliver mail to your house, all roads to your house are post roads. I know I do not agree and I would think Madison would agree with me.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Ok, they didn’t have airplanes back then, but you get my drift.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

You guys, the time to act is long past. The time to act was when the progressives jammed the crappy public education system down our throats.

A couple of generations have destroyed us.

I say, let it burn. Let the whole damn thing burn, and rebuild it from the founding documents once again. Let the Phoenix rise from the ashes.

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

I think the time where we will see the blood of patriots and tyrants nourishing the tree of liberty is near.

Fishoutofwater on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Wait. Is this a chick or a dude? The picture has me confused.

lorien1973 on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Cover up this person’s hair with your fingers and the answer will be revealed.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

These are the exact people our founding fathers wrote the Constitution for.

jukin on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

This is totally superficial and off topic, but doesn’t she have a manly face.

la.rt.wngr on August 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Article I, section 8 – “To establish post offices and post roads;”

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

HBowmanMD on August 26, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I’m O.K. with fed oversight on drug regulation and disease reporting data bases such as is done by the CDC. Trust me, trying to use only state systems on such matters leads to the potential for poor results. For example each state may have it’s own version of which lab test is definitive for a correct diagnosis in monitoring disease outbreaks and there has to be a central warehouse for preserving infectious tissue and thus disease strains.

a capella on August 26, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I am OK with it to, but I wish the power to do so was given to the federal government by the states via a constiutional amendment. My respect for the constitution trumps positions I support. Thus, pass an amendment and make this regulation constitutional.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Finally! At last, the Constitutionality of Obama’s power grabs is being seriously challenged.

Glad to hear yesterday that O’Reilly is betting ObamaCare and requiring folks to purchase insurance is unConstitutional. (Like him or not, O’Reilly’s an influence who’s helpful to have on our side.)

petefrt on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

BoR?

BobMbx on August 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

BoR => Bill of Rights

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I’m with Michael Savage. We need mandatory, public drug-testing of elected morons. It’s the only explanation.

SouthernGent on August 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

They should be required to pass a test once they are elected, before they can be seated, just like new applicants for citizenship are.

I have a friend who took and passed the citizenship test recently, and you have to know quite a bit about basic government and how it works in our Country.

Most of us would have to brush up on our social studies, history and political science to pass it. Hmmm…I wonder how many of our Reps and Senators in Congress would pass if they had to take it.

Susanboo on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

She can not possibly be this stupid!

Can she?

Is she?

She went to college…and graduated?

rukiddingme on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

While roads might fall under the interstate commerce clause, it is worth remembering that for much of American history road building and other infrastructure (used to be called internal improvements) projects were viewed as a state or local responsibility. The generally accepted test for the appropriateness of federal involvement derived from the need of the road for national defense or the delivery of the mails. While the federal government might provide some tangential aid to state or private projects via corps of engineers surveys or the purchase of small amounts of stock, Congress tended to not get too involved in such projects (except for military or post roads). Even the highway acts of the twentieth century were justified largely on defense needs.

F. Sumter on August 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I am a Civil Engineer and work on roadway projects. One cannot do ANY improvement to an existing back-country road, let alone a superhighway, without Corps of Engineers review and approval, an unbelievably long and drawn out process! States rights my foot! The 10th amendment means nothing to these loons

rhbandsp on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

In their day, anyone who tried to claim that this clause gives congress the authority to regulate airplanes … carted of to the nearest house for the terminally stupid.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Especially airplane regulation. ;-)

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:42 AM

According to ogabe our Constitution is fundamentally flawed & needs an overhaul, yet he swore an oath to uphold it.

These imbeciles talk this way precisely b/c they CAN – the public is utterly ignorant of what is Constitutional and what is not and will believe whatever is spoken aloud by these freaks. People are just too lazy to READ A BOOK or study on their own.

Ris4victory on August 26, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Shea-Porter is an idiot, and so are her supporters. On Monday when we were protesting outside of the BlueHampshire.com event where her and Rep. Paul Hodes were going to be, one of the pro-Obamacare people was standing on the other side of the street telling her, “Your doing a great job.” It’s my belief that liberals are the definite byproduct of our government education system.

If I had known she was on WGIR, I would have called in and asked her why she didn’t meet with us like Hodes did. I didn’t see her myself (I was sitting on the ground feeding my son), but from what someone described to me the only thing she did was smile at us, wave, then go inside.

ScoopPC11 on August 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM

BoR?

Bill of Rights.

The Monster on August 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

This is totally superficial and off topic, but doesn’t she have a manly face.

la.rt.wngr on August 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

She might be okay with makeup, you’d be surprised what some really attractive women look like before they put their face on in the morning, (no, wait, you married men out there have seen your wives w/out makeup). LOL!

Susanboo on August 26, 2009 at 11:48 AM

The federal government doesn’t build roads. Interstate highways, for example, are built and maintained by the state governments. They use some federal highway funds to help with that, but the federal government doesn’t “own” any roads that I know of outside of DC or federal property.

crosspatch on August 26, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I am a Civil Engineer and work on roadway projects. One cannot do ANY improvement to an existing back-country road, let alone a superhighway, without Corps of Engineers review and approval, an unbelievably long and drawn out process! States rights my foot! The 10th amendment means nothing to these loons

rhbandsp on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

then we should take Levin’s advice and use the left’s tactics against them. file lawsuit after lawsuit of unconsitutional stuff. Like the left did with religion. We casn do with liberal programs. I’m still trying to find where medicare is consitutional and social secuirty and FDIC

three major liberal prgrams that are
destroying our country day by day.

unseen on August 26, 2009 at 11:49 AM

am OK with it to, but I wish the power to do so was given to the federal government by the states via a constiutional amendment. My respect for the constitution trumps positions I support. Thus, pass an amendment and make this regulation constitutional.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

AMEN!! +1000
If we want a:
Dept of Education, pass an Amendment
CDC, pass an Amendment
FBI, Social Security, Medicare etc, pass an Amendment

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Meh, the Constitution is just a friendly suggestion to be displayed when convenient and disregarded as a “living breathing document” when it gets in the way.

Yakko77 on August 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I’m going to have to disagree with you on the drugs falling under interstate commerce. This line of thinking is what has led to all the abuse of the ICC. Regulating what someone can grow for their own use or others within the state should be totally controlled by the states themselves.

clement on August 26, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I think the time where we will see the blood of patriots and tyrants nourishing the tree of liberty is near.

Fishoutofwater on August 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I wonder, why is this quotation from the Founding Fathers a threat to the girly-Leftists, but the National Civilian Security Force and the Black Panthers are sort of “oh, just harmless hooligans, nothing to prosecute here…”

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Fortunately for Shea-Porter, the Constitution also doesn’t say that New Hampshire voters can’t elect stupid representatives.

SlaveDog on August 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I wonder, why is this quotation from the Founding Fathers a threat to the girly-Leftists,
jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:53 AM

…and a lot of other people. The founders, Sons of LIberty, and other people itching for independence during the founding years would be viewed as radicals to written off, ignored, and/or ridiculed.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:57 AM

A buddy and I started a discussion about how far back we’d have to go.. undoing the handiwork of Congress… before we got back to a real Constitutional government. Turned into a real depressing conversation.

itsacookbook on August 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Just another reason to sweep this imbeciles out of office by vote or by force. Common, they are truly common, communists.

HomeoftheBrave on August 26, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Lets all remember what Obama said, and I think this is the pervailing thinking in DC.

The Constitution is a charter of Negative Liberties. It only tells the Government what it can’t do to you, but does not say what it must do on your behalf.

jharada on August 26, 2009 at 11:59 AM

can someone please arrange an end of life meeting for this brainless leftie

rjoco1 on August 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM

can someone please arrange an end of life meeting for this brainless leftie

rjoco1 on August 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Wait a few months and then schedule her for KopechneCare.

Daggett on August 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Dude, that is one ugly man.

milwife88 on August 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Wanna be my bff?

Mommypundit on August 26, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Anyone this clueless on the Constitution should resign or be impeached. That applies to many on Capital Hill.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

INC on August 26, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Maybe we should require elected representatives to take and pass a civics class before assuming office.

This is what kids are learning in Civics class.

ROCnPhilly on August 26, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Wow, the Free State Project folks must be regretting their choice to move to New Hampshire right about now — irretrievably swamped with liberals.

We need a few conservative states to continue to push back on the Tenth Amendment (about 30 states now have resolutions in the legislature) and start nullifying unconstitional laws and mandates. Of course, they first need to be able to live without federal bribes, er, I mean funds.

Firefly_76 on August 26, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Ah but you see, when they create a Federal Dept. for every aspect of our lives it then becomes their responsibility to have a role in every aspect of out lives.

*gets wobbly*

WHOA! That mental gymnastics made me dizzy.

Yakko77 on August 26, 2009 at 12:14 PM

“I am a Civil Engineer and work on roadway projects. One cannot do ANY improvement to an existing back-country road, let alone a superhighway, without Corps of Engineers review and approval, an unbelievably long and drawn out process!”

Uhm, that isn’t true. A lot depends on exactly where that road is. If it is in a flood plain or near flood control structures, yeah, it might require their approval. Our biggest problem here in California is CalTrans. My closest friend is a civil engineer for a jurisdiction in California who designs/builds roads and bridges. The problem comes in here only when you have to cross a Corps of Engineers maintained bridge or levee. But CalTrans can take literally YEARS to approve a design that crosses a state road or provide an encroachment permit if your local street crosses a state road. It’s just nuts.

crosspatch on August 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Actually… the Constitution DID cover everything. It just covered it differently that the Libs want it covered.

The 10th Ammendment reads…

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I think that covers everything, does it not?

MikeA on August 26, 2009 at 12:16 PM

“I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads,” Shea-Porter replied.

Article I, Sec 8:

The Congress shall have Power… To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Wow, you are a dumb whore, aren’t you Carol?

JohnGalt23 on August 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Maybe we should require elected representatives to take and pass a civics class before assuming office.

Unreasonable burden.

juanito on August 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Audio: Shea-Porter says “Constitution didn’t cover everything”

This is the exact problem with government officials like Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. They get elected into office, then believe they’re somehow empowered to change, or redo whatever they chose, including the U.S. Constitution.

WRONG Carol. The United States Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. Mainly a brief road map that outlines, and limits government operations, and guaranteeing personal rights to us the people. There are provisions for Constitutional change, but nowhere is she, or members of congress given the right to add to, remove from, or alter that document on a whim.

byteshredder on August 26, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Shea-Porter needs more than a lesson in constitutional law.

GarandFan on August 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM

To “Representative” Shea-Porter…EVER HEAR OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY, NWO/SHADOW GOVERNMENT SUPPORTER?!

I guess you also want to force people to get vaccinated or else face the National Guard completing the Police State! I THOUGHT PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WERE INDEPENDENT! I GUESS COMMIE ENCLAVE CONCORD HAS SPREAD WITH LEFTIES LIKE THIS “WOMAN” AND PEOPLE LIKE JEANNE SHAHEEN!

To Shea-Porter, WHAT WOULD LIFE BE LIKE FOR YOU IN A FEMA CAMP, FASCIST ENABLER AND SUPPORTERS OF THIS IDIOT?

AND WHAT ABOUT ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 (Natural Born Citizen, OR ARE YOU SHEA PORTER SO OBSESSED WITH OBAMA YOU CALL PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION CRAZY?!

BobAnthony on August 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Why is Mike Myers wearing a wig?

Bishop on August 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM

She went to college…and graduated?

rukiddingme on August 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

from Che-Porter’s waki entry:

a 16-year-old Carol Shea-Porter was advised by her high school guidance counselor to “forget about college and try secretarial school.” Shea-Porter disavowed that advice and graduated from the University of New Hampshire. She earned a bachelor’s degree in social services and a master’s degree in public administration from the University of New Hampshire

Del Dolemonte on August 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads,” Shea-Porter replied.

Article I, Sec 8:

The Congress shall have Power… To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
Wow, you are a dumb whore, aren’t you Carol?

JohnGalt23 on August 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM\

Her statement does jive with James Madison’s view as documented by his veto of a roads and canals appropriation bill (posted earlier on this thread).

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM

We can’t take that 10th Amendment crap seriously, can we?
I mean, the South lost the damn war.

I would like to think that the SCOTUS would honor the 10th Amendment for anything. I know four of them will (Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia), but the other five… I dunno. I don’t think they have the will to challenge Federal authority to do any damn thing they want.

Sorry – just pessimistic on the real outcome, especially on gov’t Health Care (which should be a slam-dunk 10th Amendment violation).

connertown on August 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Move along, nothing to see here, a great (ewww) member of the senate has died and young girls all over are now safer.

Time to RED DAWN this MF’er.

Gather your arms, you do not need to see the whites of their eyes to fire!

igglesphan on August 26, 2009 at 12:39 PM

The problem is has only read the first 7 amendments…just like the bills she votes on, she isn’t expected to read all of it is she?

right2bright on August 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM

A buddy and I started a discussion about how far back we’d have to go.. undoing the handiwork of Congress… before we got back to a real Constitutional government. Turned into a real depressing conversation.

itsacookbook on August 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM

You could go further than this example, but to make sure statists didn’t have the ability to fund all of these wonky programs you could go back to the time before the creation of the Federal Reserve and the beginning of the end for the gold standard.

thequeball on August 26, 2009 at 12:45 PM

When the elected members of Congress have not a clue as to the meaning of ‘enumerated powers’, the country is deep in trouble.

Skywatcher44 on August 26, 2009 at 12:52 PM

a 16-year-old Carol Shea-Porter was advised by her high school guidance counselor to “forget about college and try secretarial school.”

They should have elected that guidance counselor, who was exactly right about this idiot.

But at least Shea-Porter is “making a difference”. Sort of like how a hurricane “makes a difference”.

NoDonkey on August 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM

She’s not my Congressman–Hodes is. He’s not quite as stupid but just as liberal and just as apt to echo Obama on every front. I hope she’s history in 2010.

jeanie on August 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

LOL. MN envy?

JiangxiDad on August 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the words “Minnesota” and “envy” in the same sentence.

Makes my day!

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Maybe it’s because you have Brett

Jeff from WI on August 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM

National Parks and Monuments: Pass an Amendment.

chemman on August 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM

neither of those degrees is as difficult as secretarial school!

chasdal on August 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Maybe we should require elected representatives to take and pass a civics class before assuming office. Clearly, Shea-Porter is in desperate need of one.

My husbad has been saying this for years. Other professionals have to take a licensing exam, why shouldn’t Congress and the Executive?

txmomof6 on August 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

AMEN!!! I’ve been pointing this out for months. What I’ve added is that anyone who knowingly violates their Oath of Office should be charged with high crimes as a domestic enemy.

We just need to get a conservative group in power with the will to start investigations going. That will straighten them up…

dominigan on August 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Shea looks like a man with a wig.

jediwebdude on August 26, 2009 at 1:45 PM

“I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads,” Shea-Porter replied.

Article I Section 8 Clause 7: To establish post offices and post roads;

You could attribute it to the Commerce Clause, but since that has been so twisted to cover everything, I’d cite roads as belonging to the above.

It’s amazing the insight you gain when you actually read the document!

dominigan on August 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Shea-Porter has a serious case of “man face”

jediwebdude on August 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM

“So, the Constitution did not cover everything,” Shea-Porter concluded.

MY REPLY: So what you’re saying, is that the General Welfare clause pretty much covers any action that benefits the country…

SHEA-PORTER: …absolutely!

MY REPLY: So if Democrats are implementing a socialist takeover of the country, the next administration could simply point out how the execution of all Democrats advocating socialism is a good thing… and the General Welfare Clause would cover it! Right?

SHEA-PORTER: [silence] Uhhhh… well…

The General Welfare clause is a summary. The next set of clauses enumerates the powers available for the General Welfare of the country. Read them, learn them, understand them… especially before taking an Oath to defend the Constitution!

And the 10th Amendment is the catch-all that is usually ignored…

dominigan on August 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I have felt for a long time that if the left were emboldened enough, they would begin to call for the need to discard our existing Constitution, and write a new one in the image of their wacko socialist philosophy.

I think we’re getting fairly close to that point, if not already there.

jjrakman on August 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM

The constitution does speak to healthcare. The Supreme Court has found in it (those emenations from penumbras thingies in Roe vs. Wade)the right to privacy between an individual and her physician (abortion)

How can we have privacy when the government selects the physician and requires we discuss legal final life issues with these untrained bureaucrats with stethescopes?

Don L on August 26, 2009 at 2:19 PM

She’s not my Congressman–Hodes is. He’s not quite as stupid but just as liberal and just as apt to echo Obama on every front. I hope she’s history in 2010.

jeanie on August 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I’m also in NH-last fall the son of a friend of mine was killed in action by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. His military funeral attracted thousands of people, including Governor Lynch and (almost) the entire NH Congressional delegation.

The only two people missing were…

1. Senator Judd Gregg. He had an excellent excuse for not being there, as he was at the same time helping to christen the new attack sub USS New Hamsphire in Portsmouth.

2. Che-Porter

Del Dolemonte on August 26, 2009 at 3:00 PM

That’s why need Communism…to fill in the, er, holes…yeah, that’s it!

But I fail to see how one “hole” can fill in another “hole”?

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 26, 2009 at 4:35 PM

I want whatever Ed’s smokin’!

Drugs…fall fairly understandably under the interstate commerce clause

Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor disagreed. Scalia even disagreed, although he voted the other way. In his concurring opinion, Scalia said that striking down federal drug laws would be too big a shock for our country. How’s that for a shoddy argument for federal drug laws?

Al in St. Lou on August 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM

The woman is an idiot.

DDT on August 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM

She’s as stupid as my congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee. At least the people in my congressional district have an excuse for voting for Sheila – a great number are poor and uneducated.

What the hell is wrong with the idiot voters in this district?

chris999 on August 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM