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.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Dope.

Shy Guy on August 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM

What’s this Constitution thingy?

Keyser-Soze on August 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Hey, that’s my Congresswoman! That’s the kind of mental acumen I expect from my elected representative. Thanks CSP for doing your part to make New Hampshire middle school social studies students feel so smart.

Gymkata on August 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM

The constitution did cover everything. Anything not specifically provided goes to the states. Isn’t that the 10th ammendment or something?

The original colonies were wary of a distant powerful government telling them what to do. The constitution was designed to specifically limit the federal government. It covered everything.

The federal government is there to provide for the common defense and settle disputes between the states.

That’s it.

It covers everything. Every new law limits my freedom. The founders were more concerned with freedom than anything. This administration and congress have no idea what FREEDOM means.

ThackerAgency on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

tee hee! Ed said “butt”.

bluelightbrigade on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

I don’t think it specifically says you can’t bloodgeon your representatives with a blunt insturment either….so that’s ok right?

lm10001 on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

When we demand that reps “read the bill”, we should also add “Have you read the consitution?”.

Unfortunately when Obama read it he was looking for loopholes.

kurtzz3 on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

it’s living/breathing…nuf said.

solidaction on August 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Can the Constitution remove her double chin? Just wonderin’.

bluelightbrigade on August 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Obama transcends the Constitution.

artist on August 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Oh, we just keep reaping benefits from our public education system, don’t we?

kc8ukw on August 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Yeah! Excellent point.

bitsy on August 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Uh, thats the point. Government isn’t supposed to cover everything, only what the Constitution lays out in plain terms. Of course a statist doesn’t understand the concept of limited government.

smfoushee on August 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

She kept saying “should”, rather than may. She considers the Constitution to be advisory.

exception on August 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

For these knuckleheads, ignorance is bliss. “I didn’t know that was unconstitutional, so I will trample your rights! My bad.” Wake up, people. Stop voting for morons that can’t demonstrate being reasonably suited for the job.

search4truth on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Suppose you can get thrown out for not understanding the constitution? You can’t defend what you don’t understand?

ThatMan on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

So, I guess The Administration and Congress are no longer bound by that “Constitution-thingy”, huh? Morons.

kingsjester on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

The moment that idiotic statement flew out from between the teeth of Carol Shea-Porter, the people in her district should have started the process to recall her sorry butt from Congress right there on the spot!

This is why we have the type of Congress we have right now!

pilamaye on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Ditz – with a goiter.

jake-the-goose on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

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 idiot dems don’t like our federal government. They prefer a super-state where everything is run from Washington. They have as much use for the Constitution as turtles have for it. All the left knows about the US COnstitution are a few pieces of the Bill of Rights (which they misinterpret … big surprise). Other than that, they are clueless as to what the document says and why it says that. Of course, this is understandable, since the Constitution is only a couple of pages long and not written in intentionally obfuscatory legal language.

It’s really a shame that people who have not a clue about the structure of our government would be manning the positions that run it. Incredible, really.

But, then again, we just got a SCOTUS justice who was picked for empathy and ethnic reasons … That meteor just can’t come soon enough.

progressoverpeace on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

The constitution did cover everything. Anything not specifically provided goes to the states. Isn’t that the 10th ammendment or something?

sorry Ed, posted before reading. I do wish that the people in congress didn’t think they were some sort of nobility though. They certainly act like we live in a feudal society. Instead of freedom, they think this country stands for an all powerful federal government that tells everyone what to do.

They don’t believe that the government is by for and of the people. They believe that the people are by for and of the government.

It is sad.

ThackerAgency on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

What’s this Constitution thingy?

Keyser-Soze on August 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Ah yes, these liberals have found a use for the constitution after all.

mizflame98 on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

“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.”

Roads: Interstate Commerce and military
Drug safety: Interstate Commerce
Airplane safety: Interstate Commerce (and now national security)
Police force in Manchester: Um, what federal police force in Manchester?

Count to 10 on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Good question….are there not provisions in the Constitution that would allow for the (dissolvement) of a Govt hell bent on destroying the very thing they swore to protect and uphold?

Onward Forward and Upward!!

RoxanneH on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

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

FIFY

Browncoatone on August 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Do all politicians evolve from contaminated gene pools . . . or is it that “dumb” is an established prerequisite for political office?

rplat on August 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Who was this dope married to or what was her family name, that got her this seat?

Because it seems like Congress is nothing but a bunch of incompetent, unqualified legacies cashing in on daddy’s name, ditzy rich broads whose billionaire husbands want them out of the house (e.g. Pelosi), idiot “celebrities” (e.g. Al Franken), or professional race baiters (e.g. the entire black caucus).

None of these people have an ounce of intelligence or competence that is of any value at all, to the American people.

And that’s why we’re in the mess we are in. Jackasses like this dingbat.

NoDonkey on August 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

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.

Well … the drugs part is a heck of a stretch for the commerce clause (too much of a stretch for me) and the interstate highway system was a defense project.

progressoverpeace on August 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Very well should be!

bridgetown on August 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I can picture her standing on a kitchen chair shreeking and pointing at a copy of the Constitution on the floor, saying, “Help! Get this thing away from me!!”.

Is that sexist of me? I don’t think so since I picture Harry Reid doing the exact same thing.

DrAllecon on August 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM

this moron is clueless. she should spend some time reading the constitution and then, and only then, can she speak intelligently about it’s contents. absolute moron

rjoco1 on August 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

*smacks her with a fish rolled up in the NY Times*

Read a book!

Orange Doorhinge on August 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Don’t read the constitution. Don’t read the bills….

What do these people do???

bridgetown on August 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Hyphenated last name. This explains a lot.

Firmworm on August 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Honey, what it doesn’t cover belongs to us, not you.

Vashta.Nerada on August 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

+1000000

Beat me to it!!

rockmom on August 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I think it would be more important for voters to take and pass a civics class before being allowed to vote. But not one taught by liberals. Then we might avoid ignorant POS representatives like Shea-Porter altogether.

SKYFOX on August 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

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.

Put me in the “I don’t understand” camp. If a drug company only sold drugs in the state of IL, would they not be regulated? Of course they would in our current governing environment.

Don’t have time to dig up links, but I feel very confident that regulating companies as we do today was not what the founder’s intentions in the commerce clause. I think they simply wanted a free trade zone between the states.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

So, we fought the war of independence so we wouldn’t have to say ‘God save the Queen’. Instead we are supposed to say ‘God save the government’.

ThackerAgency on August 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

For these knuckleheads, ignorance is bliss. “I didn’t know that was unconstitutional, so I will trample your rights! My bad.” Wake up, people. Stop voting for morons that can’t demonstrate being reasonably suited for the job.

Ditto!

BigMike252 on August 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Ugh.

LibTired on August 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM

They don’t read the bills they vote on. They don’t listen to their constituents. They don’t understand the founding document of our entire legal/political system. Would someone please explain to me what these people actually do for us in Washington? I’m starting to think Sprint may have an idea with their firemen/loggers commercials. Seriously, could any other group do as badly as our politicians have done…rhetorical.

ScottiesRule on August 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Removal from office due to violation of oath.

Why is this not possible anymore?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

It’s only possible when Congress is dominated by the opposite party and that party has some balls.

Shame, really, since that’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

Daggett on August 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Congress operates under the assumption that they can do whatever they desire only limited by court cases brought by folk with deep pockets before Judges who might accidentally have read the Constitution…

JIMV on August 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Does the constitution cover a recall election for President of the United States?

Or if not, can it be made to cover one?

I’d be totally for that. I think a lot of people would.

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

From Article I Section 8

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

She may want to check on that road thing again.

rob verdi on August 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Some people just can’t mind their own business, its why we needed a Constitution.

[The] right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

BRANDEIS, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LOUIS, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)

Speakup on August 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM

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.

The unintended consequence of this would be anarchy until such time as 535 citizens could pass the test to replace the 535 who failed.

A few good men, eh?

BobMbx on August 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM

WHAT!!!???? There’s a constitution?????? Get out no way!

xler8bmw on August 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Sorry to be a catty female, but that woman needs a makeover. Why do some women think that by putting on a suit, they look professional. She obviously goes to the trouble to have her hair cut nicely, why not do the face to match? For heavens sake, she’s a member of the House of Representatives.

Sorry, it’s just one of those “pet peeves” I have.

Susanboo on August 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

“to establish post offices and post roads.”

The Constitution DOES say we can build roads. In addition, the SCOTUS has ruled that Railroads were Post Roads and by extension Air Routes. Also that these Roads would be used for “Concurrent Purposes.” So all methods of Intrastate and Interstate transportation CAN be found to have a constitutional basis.

She is an IDIOT.

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Does the constitution cover a recall election for President of the United States?

No.

Or if not, can it be made to cover one?

Yes, by Constitutional Amendment.

I’d be totally for that. I think a lot of people would.

I’d prefer term limits first.

BobMbx on August 26, 2009 at 11:17 AM

by 2019…. 14.4 trillion in debt

.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/concord-coalition-plausible-baseline

ms on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

To be fair, it isn’t like they teach about the Constitution or Declaration of Independence in school anymore.

rbj on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

rob verdi on August 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I was typing when you posted, sorry for the duplicate.

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Dumbing down through the public schools has produced ignorant sheeple.

jbh45 on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Can’t
Understand
Normal
Thinking

Jerome Horwitz on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

It’s only possible when Congress is dominated by the opposite party and that party has some balls.

Shame, really, since that’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

Daggett on August 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m supporting any candidate for office for 2010 that would work towards passing legislation that would make it possible for elected officials to bring forth votes of no confidence.

The number of special elections that would need to take place afterwards would be staggering.

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

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

Never a truer thing said?

LastRick on August 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Dude, that is one ugly man.

milwife88 on August 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Unfortunately, one thing our Founders didn’t cover is how to get rid of twits like Shea-Porter–expeditiously.

But then maybe they didn’t think a twit like her would ever get elected in the first place.

Sigh.

BuckeyeSam on August 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Actually, the thought process of the common Leftist is simple.

1. The constitution covers the “common welfare” or the “common good”

2. Well I think health care for the children would be “good”.

3. Ergo health care takeover is constitutional.

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

“to establish post offices and post roads.”

The Constitution DOES say we can build roads. In addition, the SCOTUS has ruled that Railroads were Post Roads and by extension Air Routes. Also that these Roads would be used for “Concurrent Purposes.” So all methods of Intrastate and Interstate transportation CAN be found to have a constitutional basis.

barnone on August 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Than why did James Madison, widely considered the father of the Constitution, veto a bill for roads and canals?

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Most people in New Hampshire are well versed in government, history, and the Constitution. I would bet that they have a better grasp on the constitution than most states. But this representative is wrong.

The problem with the public option is that the government is taking on another unlimited liability. It might be an option of whether or not to be on the plan, but it will not be an option for taxpayers to not pay the claims for the people on the plan.

ThackerAgency on August 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Has she ever heard of “General Welfare Clause” which is general welfare of the country NOT charity to the people or “Commerce Clause” for interstate exchange of commerce!

xler8bmw on August 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I don’t think it specifically says you can’t bloodgeon your representatives with a blunt insturment either….so that’s ok right?

lm10001 on August 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Hah! It is by her (idiotic) reasoning.

Don’t have time to dig up links, but I feel very confident that regulating companies as we do today was not what the founder’s intentions in the commerce clause. I think they simply wanted a free trade zone between the states.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

You’re correct. The commerce clause has been distorted beyond recognition by a SCOTUS intent on expanding the power and reach of the federal government. It is disgraceful and clearly violative of the Founding Fathers’ intent.

AZCoyote on August 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

It is a sad day when the Constitution becomes a form of suggestions to be mocked and belittled.

mobydutch on August 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

So, I guess The Administration and Congress are no longer bound by that “Constitution-thingy”, huh? Morons.

kingsjester on August 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

SO, if they are not then every state is not as well.

izoneguy on August 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

The constitutional argument is just not compelling, as this GOP member points out.

Purists love it. But it’s serving mainly to obscure the real debate, which is whether we are willing to take a step towards socialized medicine.

I am for public option, but the current proposals aren’t impressive to me, anyway. And the far-left and far-right arguments both make me wonder.

AnninCA on August 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Our Constitution was considered so limited by the Founders that they did not feel the Bill of Rights was truly necessary. It’s adoption came several years later, largely due to pressure from the Anti-Federalists who feared a too strong central government, who only supported the Constitution with the promise that the BoR would be added. It was thought by some that there was no need, it was so clear that all rights were retained by the people and the States and very few granted to the Federal, yet today we seem to look only to the Bill of Rights as the source of our freedoms and if we don’t find it there, well, tough luck. This is a real shame, we have lost much freedom through the loss of this perspective.

So now, and for quite some time, we have dolts telling us that “it’s not in the Constitution so they can control it”, when by the intent of the Founders it was intended to be “if it’s not in the Constitution they can’t control it.”

Maquis on August 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

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.

I beg to differ. She quite rightly takes advantage of voters who either eschew civics, or have a non-democratic view of them. It’s not enough to kick out the socialists and commies. Their enablers have to be dealt with as well.

JiangxiDad on August 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Schools haven’t taught “civics” in years, thus idiots like this woman exist. I bet she never read the entire Constitution or Bill of Rights either.

bradley11 on August 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM

barnone
hech, I am glad someone else caught that!

rob verdi on August 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM

I’m sorry, but this woman has got to be one of the fugliest I’ve ever seen.

NathanG on August 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

The Constitution is just a suggestion to liberals. When the Constitution and liberal’s desires line up, they think, “Great!” When the Constitution doesn’t support what liberals want, it is just some out-dated piece of paper.

GardenGnome on August 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Most people in New Hampshire are well versed in government, history, and the Constitution. I would bet that they have a better grasp on the constitution than most states. But this representative is wrong.

ThackerAgency on August 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

My goodness, Thack, that’s not the New Hampshire I remember.

Sometimes I had to snap my fingers a couple of times when talking to a New Hampshire-ite, to jolt their consciousness from hibernation mode.

What city was that, Nashua I think. I remember making a mental note to myself to have the government check into a possible defect in the water supply or something.

My feelings for New Hampshire mirror Rush Limbaugh’s feelings about Rio Linda California.

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Here’s a snippet from the biography of this genius.

Carol graduated from public high school in Durham, New Hampshire and then worked her way through the University of New Hampshire, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Social Services and later a Master’s Degree in Public Administration.

Gee, what a surprise. An expert on how to intrude into the lives of others.

RadClown on August 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Maquis on August 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I am in this camp myself. I feel the best way to get to the founders intent, especially Madison, Jay and Hamilton is view the constitution without the BoR.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM

In the words of Red Forman, “Way to go, dumb*ss.”

teke184 on August 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Than why did James Madison, widely considered the father of the Constitution, veto a bill for roads and canals?

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:20 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

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

Sorry to be a catty female, but that woman needs a makeover.

You can’t cover up stupid.

mchristian on August 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I urge ALL of you to look, and read, the following…

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-file-1-forget-islam-look-at.html

Once you’ve had your ‘fill’ there is yet another you should challenge yourself with in reading…

http://www.usasurvival.org/

I can only say that my stomach is in knots and my brain is swirling in thoughts of how we are in some very SERIOUS territory.

lyfsatrip on August 26, 2009 at 11:28 AM

WHAT!!!???? There’s a constitution?????? Get out no way!

xler8bmw on August 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, there is, really.

I think it’s posted somewhere as a decoration.

Daggett on August 26, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Put me in the “I don’t understand” camp. If a drug company only sold drugs in the state of IL, would they not be regulated? Of course they would in our current governing environment.

Don’t have time to dig up links, but I feel very confident that regulating companies as we do today was not what the founder’s intentions in the commerce clause. I think they simply wanted a free trade zone between the states.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:11 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

You can’t cover up stupid.

mchristian on August 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

you can’t fix it either, as ron white says…stupid is forever.

SHARPTOOTH on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Maybe we should require elected representatives to take and pass a civics class before assuming office be properly vetted through scholarly debate, questioning and appropriate media skepticism on their positions. Clearly, Shea-Porter is in desperate need of one a post-election day job search.

FIFY dude.

ted c on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Our elected officials are so arrogant that they do not think the Constitution applies to them. It’s time to show them differently.

BetseyRoss on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

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

lorien1973 on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

If it’s OK for the federal government to do anything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution then I must assume she was perfectly happy with the Patriot Act. After all, telephones and Libraries aren’t mentioned either.

Fred 2 on August 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Shea-Porter would have to sneak up on a glass of water to take a sip. Damn, she is one unattractive woman.

alliebobbitt on August 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

The woman is an imbecile. If she gives those kinds of answers at her town hall, it should make for interesting video…

dogsoldier on August 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Look at MEEEEEE! I’m a politician!

allstonian on August 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I’m sorry, but this woman has got to be one of the fugliest I’ve ever seen.

NathanG on August 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Yeah, see my comment 11:16 above, she needs a makeover, major….and she’s ignorant on top of that.

Susanboo on August 26, 2009 at 11:30 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

BoR.

WashJeff on August 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM

BoR?

BobMbx on August 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

My goodness, Thack, that’s not the New Hampshire I remember.

Sometimes I had to snap my fingers a couple of times when talking to a New Hampshire-ite, to jolt their consciousness from hibernation mode.

What city was that, Nashua I think. I remember making a mental note to myself to have the government check into a possible defect in the water supply or something.

My feelings for New Hampshire mirror Rush Limbaugh’s feelings about Rio Linda California.

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

LOL. MN envy?

JiangxiDad on August 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Oh let’s not be petty. Being ugly is God’s way of telling you to develop your intellect.

Which, ah, no that doesn’t help here…

Nevermind.

jeff_from_mpls on August 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2