Inevitable: Birther heckles reading of Constitution

posted at 2:55 pm on January 6, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Come on, man … or woman, in this case. The reading of the Constitution this afternoon in the new Republican majority proceeded in both a respectful and bipartisan fashion, with members of both parties taking part in the somber recitation of the foundational legal document of the Republic. However, as Greg Hengler captures for Townhall, the predictable happens when Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) gets to Article II, Section I, causing the House to come to a halt:

Give Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) credit for a quick and forceful response. Birthers will hail this as their “You lie!” moment, but everyone else will just be embarrassed. Right now, Congress needs to apply the Constitution to its own actions, which was the point of this exercise.

But embarrassing protests surrounding the reading today aren’t limited to the peanut gallery at the House. David Cole tries for snark at the Washington Post in his idea of what conservatives want to see in the Constitution:

We, the Real Americans, in order to form a more God-Fearing Union, establish Justice as we see it, DefeatHealth-Care Reform, and Preserve and Protect our Property, our Guns and our Right Not to Pay Taxes, do ordain and establish this Conservative Constitution for the United States of Real America.

Article I. Congress shall have only the powers literally, specifically and expressly granted herein, and no others. That means definitely, without question, absolutely, no regulation of the Health Insurance or Financial Services industries.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.

Any law enacted by Congress and signed by the President may be overturned by the vote of three or more States if they find it burdensome, offensive, annoying or in any way touching on Health Insurance, Property Rights or Guns.

Cole goes on at length in this vein far longer than the joke deserves even if it was funny or trenchant.  Instead, it just makes Cole look like a fool.  Most conservatives actually like what the Constitution says right now, and wish liberals did, too.  If we had to make one addition, it would be an Article VIII that reads:

Everything in this document means exactly what it says, no more and no less.  If future generations want to imbue other meaning and grant more authority than what we have explicitly stated in easily-understood language, please re-read Article V.

But then again, that doesn’t fill three web pages or vent a lot of hostility at conservatives who actually can read and understand documents literally decades old.

Update: Simpson is from Idaho, not Ohio, which I knew but just had a brain fade.  Thanks to Jacob M for the heads-up.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

you don’t have it believe it, but if you’ve ever worked for a salary or paid someone else’s salary, you’ve lived it.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Again, where in the Constitution does the gov’t have the authority to make you buy something? Are you claiming that the authority to tax is the authority to force purchases?

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM

The lefts meltdown about reading the document has been stunning to me.

rob verdi on January 6, 2011 at 4:42 PM

But embarrassing protests surrounding the reading today aren’t limited to the peanut gallery at the House.

Love to see them get all wee-weed up over The Constitution.

canditaylor68 on January 6, 2011 at 4:46 PM

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.

Project much?

CurtZHP on January 6, 2011 at 4:47 PM

when the money that goes in comes from taxes, the taxpayers are footing the cost and doing the buying for everything that goes out.

that’s just the way it is.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM

You don’t get to redefine the word buying. They take our money and give it to someone else. That’s not buying. It’s got nothing to do with the commerce clause.

Ronnie on January 6, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Again, where in the Constitution does the gov’t have the authority to make you buy something? Are you claiming that the authority to tax is the authority to force purchases?

MeatHeadinCA

start with ArtI Sec8

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM

You don’t get to redefine the word buying. They take our money and give it to someone else. That’s not buying. It’s got nothing to do with the commerce clause.

Ronnie on January 6, 2011 at 4:47 PM

If paying taxes is the same (under the law) as buying, can you see how much crap we are buying for public employees. It’s bad enough that our taxes go to send the Obamas over to Spain and such … but we may actually be buying those hideous clothes MO wears.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM

start with ArtI Sec8

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And?

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM

start with ArtI Sec8

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And?

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Word for word go through and justify how taxation is the same as forcing one to purchase something…

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM

No, you pay taxes and then the government pays for the pensions. Perhaps indirectly, you are “buying;” however, this is justified via the authority the gov’t has to tax.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM

No, we are NOT buying medical benefits or pensions. Actually that is what we are PAYING to soldiers in exchange for their services.

If someone believes he is ‘buying’ a portion of the veterans benefits without actually having provided the service, well, it would be funny watching him attempt to collect his ‘purchase’.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Ronnie, what’s the difference between “buying” … and “paying for the purchase of” ?

taxes pay for the purchase of things.

I understand what you’re saying about being forced to buy, and it is unusual to have the Congress tell you to go out and pay for something instead of Congress telling you to send the money to DC and they’ll have people in the executive branch buy it, but that’s all the difference that I see.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Another interesting side effect of Obamacare is that no citizen will be able to live fully off the grid anymore, not legally anyway. You MUST have a relationship with the IRS, even if you have no other taxable income – either to prove that you have health insurance, or to pay the fine for not having health insurance.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I still say the birther card may be the greatest Democratic weapon on the table. Lets imagine that the birthers are right, and there is a basis to bar Obama from office. Imagine now that the economy doesn’t improve and his numbers begin to drop again. It won’t even be necessary for the Dems to primary him. They just bar him from running for re-election.

DFCtomm on January 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Oh, if that were to happen, every law signed, every appointment, EVERYTHING Obama has done would be rendered null and void should Obama be declared a usurper, a poseur.

Worse, all of those who aided the usurpation would be up for prosecution as well as Obama himself. It would be quite ugly.

I doubt the democrats want that. It could actually end the party forever.

gary4205 on January 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM

No there is another difference you forgot to mention. These are government approved healthcare insurance policies. Keep that in mind.

canditaylor68 on January 6, 2011 at 5:01 PM

No, we are NOT buying medical benefits or pensions. Actually that is what we are PAYING to soldiers in exchange for their services.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Agreed. Audiculous is arguing that since we are funding the purchase, we are automatically buying. This is absurd. Whether drugs are legal or not they are certainly part of our economy. Audiculous’ logic would say that if you buy anything; that is, you participate in the economy, you are purchasing drugs. Or at least with a reasonable probability you are. I suppose his reasoning only applies if your activity in the global economy can be linked to drug purchases.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM

I understand what you’re saying about being forced to buy, and it is unusual to have the Congress tell you to go out and pay for something instead of Congress telling you to send the money to DC and they’ll have people in the executive branch buy it, but that’s all the difference that I see.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, well, it’s kind of a big difference.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM

. Actually that is what we are PAYING to soldiers in exchange for their services.

Fighton03

paying for those services is buying those services.

until someone here shows me a definition much different from

buying—acquiring in exchange for money or its equivalent;

I’m stuck on that definition.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Ronnie, what’s the difference between “buying” … and “paying for the purchase of” ?

taxes pay for the purchase of things.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM

They’re functionally the same, of course. And there are very few people who would deny that Congress could, consistent with the Constitution, create a single-payer system and fund it through taxation (like Medicare on a larger scale). That’s one of the odd things about this situation. Conservatives contend that the method which involves less governmental intrusion into the health insurance sector (the individual mandate) is constitutional, while a much more intrusive method (single payer) would be constitutional.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM

MeatHeadinCA
No, meat. When the Congress, representing the citizens of the US, taxes and buys services for the citizens of the US, we are buying those services. We have legally authorized both the decision to buy and the purchase.
If your business partner takes his share of the income from the business and buys an ounce of weed, that does not mean that he’s buying it with your authorization and that you’re part of the transaction.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM

while a much more intrusive method (single payer) would be constitutional.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Think of it as the conservatives daring Obama to raise taxes to pay for his newest entitlement program … daring him to openly come out and raise taxes and redistribute the wealth.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM

What stops the government from forcing you to “buy” anything they can think of, by using the “tax” system to penalize you and the individual mandate enforced by Federal law/jail/fines?

canditaylor68 on January 6, 2011 at 5:11 PM

They’re functionally the same, of course.

They are not functionally the same. The government requiring me, a private citizen, to go out and give my own money to a private insurance company, to pay for my own (or my family’s) health insurance, is functionally NOT the same thing as the government taxing a portion of my earnings and using that money to reimburse a health care provider for their provision of someone else’s health care (Medicare, Medicaid) or to pay directly for someone else’s health care (VA hospitals).

If the government requires you to go out and buy X amount of food from a grocery store for your own consumption, is that functionally the same thing as the government taxing you to pay for the provision of food to military personnel overseas?

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM

No, meat. When the Congress, representing the citizens of the US, taxes and buys services for the citizens of the US, we are buying those services.

The government is on behalf of someone or some group. That’s it. That’s where it stops. Until you can prove otherwise.

If your business partner takes his share of the income from the business and buys an ounce of weed, that does not mean that he’s buying it with your authorization and that you’re part of the transaction.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Oh, so now you’re concerned about taxpayers authorizing a transaction? Really? I’d have to guess that for every single transaction our government makes, there is at least one taxpayer that objects and would not authorize this transaction and would most definitely not make this transaction with the money the government lets them keep.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM

If the government requires you to go out and buy X amount of food from a grocery store for your own consumption, is that functionally the same thing as the government taxing you to pay for the provision of food to military personnel overseas?

Missy

Actually it is pretty much the same thing if the government taxes you to pay for the provisions for military personnel and then the government drafts you into the military.
Now, I assume from the “Missy” that it didn’t happen to you, but it happened to some of us.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM

What stops the government from forcing you to “buy” anything they can think of, by using the “tax” system to penalize you and the individual mandate enforced by Federal law/jail/fines?

canditaylor68 on January 6, 2011 at 5:11 PM

While I don’t like taxation and I don’t like the idea of the gov’t using taxation as a way to get us to fund just anything; at least it’s a more honest approach.

I’m totally against Obamacare, but I might have less of an argument had Obamacare simply been funded via taxation (which many on the Left are just now claiming it is).

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:18 PM

The Hatefilled Left is the vulgar and rude group who does stuff like this… Think Code Pink… The woman shouting is a Hatefilled Left plant.

CCRWM on January 6, 2011 at 5:21 PM

for every single transaction our government makes, there is at least one taxpayer that objects

MeatHeadinCA

It doesn’t matter a sparrow’sfart worth if the taxpayer objects, he or she has still legally authorized the transaction if the Congress has mandated it and the SCOTUS hasn’t ruled against it.

This idea might actually be found somewhere in the Constitution.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:21 PM

This reminds me of a funny joke a friend of mine posted the other day (you know who you are):

Knock Knock.

Who’s there?

Kenya

Kenya who?

Kenya show me your birth certificate??

*snicker*

NTWR on January 6, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Actually it is pretty much the same thing if the government taxes you to pay for the provisions for military personnel and then the government drafts you into the military.
Now, I assume from the “Missy” that it didn’t happen to you, but it happened to some of us.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM

No, it didn’t happen to me. And it is still not “pretty much the same thing.”

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Conservatives contend that the method which involves less governmental intrusion into the health insurance sector (the individual mandate) is constitutional, while a much more intrusive method (single payer) would be constitutional.

crr6 on January 6, 2011

The so-called Single Payer system would not have passed and likely never would pass an American legislature. Of course, this is why the 111th Congress chose to be tricky. Anything along the lines of Single Payer is politically untenable. Conservatives certainly don’t want an intrusive Single Payer system, and most others don’t either. The assertion that a Single Payer system is ‘Constitutional’ is dubious too…at least by vote of simple majority.

JonPrichard on January 6, 2011 at 5:29 PM

It doesn’t matter a sparrow’sfart worth if the taxpayer objects, he or she has still legally authorized the transaction if the Congress has mandated it and the SCOTUS hasn’t ruled against it.

This idea might actually be found somewhere in the Constitution.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Why? Where?

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:32 PM

The so-called Single Payer system would not have passed and likely never would pass an American legislature.

JonPrichard on January 6, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Probably, but the logic is that the mandate is unconstitutional because it forces you to purchase a product from a private company. However, you can solve that “problem” by creating a single payer system and make health care like Social Security.

The fact that people oppose the mandate on policy grounds is fine but dressing up policy disapproval in the clothes of a constitutional argument is, frankly, an abuse of the legal system.

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Missy,

could you explain how much different it is to require you to buy auto insurance as a condition for you being allowed to drive a car and requiring you to buy health insurance as a condition for allowing you to utilize health care facilities receiving government funding in whole or in part?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

My feeling is that that point is ultimately what the Court will hang its opinion on when/if they uphold the mandate.

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:35 PM

The fact that people oppose the mandate on policy grounds is fine but dressing up policy disapproval in the clothes of a constitutional argument is, frankly, an abuse of the legal system.

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Trying to use the legal system to preserve the individual’s right NOT to purchase something is now abusing the legal system? Wow.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM

could you explain how much different it is to require you to buy auto insurance as a condition for you being allowed to drive a car and requiring you to buy health insurance as a condition for allowing you to utilize health care facilities receiving government funding in whole or in part?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal one.

But you are required to buy seatbelts if you buy a car, and that’s a federal law. But again the distinction there is that you’re not required to buy that car, but the argument with health care is that you essentially cannot “opt out” by not purchasing a car.

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM

could you explain how much different it is to require you to buy auto insurance as a condition for you being allowed to drive a car and requiring you to buy health insurance as a condition for allowing you to utilize health care facilities receiving government funding in whole or in part?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

So what do you say to those forced to buy insurance even if they never plan on using a gov’t owned health care service?

“Tough, it’s pretty much a tax anyway!” ???

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Trying to use the legal system to preserve the individual’s right NOT to purchase something is now abusing the legal system? Wow.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Is that what I said? No? OK. “Wow.”

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM

They are not functionally the same.

Yeah, they are. They’re still different, in that there are very different structural limitations on Congress’s power to tax and spend, and Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. But both methods (single payer and the mandate) involve the government mandating that you pay X amount of money in order to pay for insurance coverage.

If the government requires you to go out and buy X amount of food from a grocery store for your own consumption, is that functionally the same thing as the government taxing you to pay for the provision of food to military personnel overseas?
Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Aristotle said that the ability to create perfect analogies is a sign of genius. You’re not a genius.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Why? Where?

MeatHeadinCA

I sent you to Art I Sec 8 before. that mentions Congress and taxes and a few other things.

Once you’ve got that down, look to the part of Art I where it says that laws can be made with 2/3s of the members of both houses of Congress concurring, even if the president objects!

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Is that what I said? No? OK. “Wow.”

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Here’s what you said.

The fact that people oppose the mandate on policy grounds is fine but dressing up policy disapproval in the clothes of a constitutional argument is, frankly, an abuse of the legal system.

Proud Rino on January 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

The opposition is not abusing the legal system. If anything they are using the legal system in order to preserve the rights of the individual. At least the majority of the opposition.

I’m all for “abusing” the legal system and force Obama to call his healthcare debacle a “tax” if that’s what it takes for the thing to sink in a peaceful, legal way.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Proud Rino, you can “opt out” . they may fine you if you don’t purchase the insurance, but it’s not clear that they will if you never try to use the healthcare facilities.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

I sent you to Art I Sec 8 before. that mentions Congress and taxes and a few other things.

Once you’ve got that down, look to the part of Art I where it says that laws can be made with 2/3s of the members of both houses of Congress concurring, even if the president objects!

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM

OK, that’s not a proof. You can’t even walk through a word by word deduction of your claim.

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

You’re not a genius.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Says the law student that knows little about grad school and writes book reports for a degree…

MeatHeadinCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:45 PM

So WHO in the House gave the birther a ticket? You don’t just walk in from the street.

GarandFan on January 6, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Jeesh*… how incredibly rude. But then, we live in an age where people actually protest funerals.

It’s a rude time, for sure.

AnninCA on January 6, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Missy,

could you explain how much different it is to require you to buy auto insurance as a condition for you being allowed to drive a car and requiring you to buy health insurance as a condition for allowing you to utilize health care facilities receiving government funding in whole or in part?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Because I don’t have to drive a car. I can opt not to do that. The mandate doesn’t allow an opt-out for purchasing health insurance (except for certain groups of people who are exempt).

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Aristotle said that the ability to create perfect analogies is a sign of genius. You’re not a genius.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM

How cute. I claim perfection in no endeavor, so, mea culpa.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 5:58 PM

but it’s not clear that they will if you never try to use the healthcare facilities.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Are you saying there is a possiblity that someone would not be fined for not purchasing health insurance if they never attempt to obtain care at a health care facility?

If so, I’d like to see a source for that.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Missy, so far they haven’t fined anybody!

Until the law is in effect, the question of how rigorously it will be enforced can’t be settled.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Article I. Congress shall have only the powers literally, specifically and expressly granted herein, and no others.

Well, Yeah. It’s self evident.

It’s a good thing this was pursued by many on our side.

It’s paying dividends…for Democrats who want to paint the right as idiots and lunatics.

It’s paying dividends for those of us on the right who want the leftists to have ample opportunity to demonstrate what idiots and lunatics they are.

single stack on January 6, 2011 at 6:06 PM

single stack, see Sec 8,

paying dividends is under general Welfare.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Oh look: Liberal organization People for the American Way has held readings of the Constitution many times:

Some videos here. With celebrities like Richard Gere, Betty Friedan, Mandy Patinkin, politicians like Robert Byrd….

They grudgingly admit it’s nice for Congress to do it, which makes them less hypocritical than some other liberal/left organizations.

So if reading the Constitution out loud is a good thing for citizens to do, shouldnt it be more so for our elected representatives?

YehuditTX on January 6, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Also, I don’t think Congress has ever passed a law that the majority honestly believed was unconstitutional and they were just like, “Eh, whatever, let’s just pass it.”

Deem to pass? Pass it to find out what is in it? Pole vault? Didn’t read the 2000 pages? The reason they did those things was because they knew it is unconstitutional.

Or did I miss a sarc tag?

csdeven on January 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM

It is sad to watch these progressives tie the constitution and the meanings of words into knots in order to justify their treason.

It’s funny to watch them the next day untie those same words and the constitution to justify their next talking point.

Progressives are not crazy because they gravitate to progressivism, they gravitate to progressivism because they were born mentally deficient.

csdeven on January 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I want to know why they felt the need to skip parts of the constitution for fear of offending anyone? Am I suppose to take this congress serious if they refuse to read the ENTIRE constitution?

mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Progressives are not crazy because they gravitate to progressivism, they gravitate to progressivism because they were born mentally deficient.

csdeven

that’s such tiresome drivel and it takes a fairly obtuse type of jackarse to spew it out.

people espousing progressive ideas do so for various reasons and those holding with progressivism are a mixed bag of folks, some not too bright and some considerably more intellectually able than yourself, if you can’t do better than that comment.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Is this the rebirth of happyfeet?

Inanemergencydial on January 6, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Is this the dawning of the age of jackairius?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:24 PM

There is the confession.

Inanemergencydial on January 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM

hear a confession, there a confection, everywhere a convention, inside your head confusion.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I had to go back and read the title of this thread as it seems to have taken a different turn. For some reason, I thought it was about the heckler(birther, as it is known here)during the reading of the constitution, when someone referred to Obama.

silvernana on January 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Missy, so far they haven’t fined anybody!

Until the law is in effect, the question of how rigorously it will be enforced can’t be settled.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM

True. Would have been nice to know ahead of time how it will be handled, however, since if it isn’t enforced rigorously, or if the fine isn’t punitive, it will be toothless and therefore inadequate to balance the enormous costs of guaranteed issue.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 7:53 PM

paying for those services is buying those services.

until someone here shows me a definition much different from

buying—acquiring in exchange for money or its equivalent;

I’m stuck on that definition.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM

first, as I said, we are not paying FOR, we are paying TO. This can be shown very simply…..who takes possession of the benefits in question? The soldier/veteran. Who does he takes possession from? The government of the United states. What consideration is given in exchange for those benefits? The veterans personal service.

The citizens of the US contract with our government to provide for the common defense. In consideration we pay taxes. The government of the US contracts with individual citizens to provide there services as soldier/airman/marines. In consideration the government PAYS them in cash and benefits.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Give Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) credit for a quick and forceful response. Birthers will hail this as their “You lie!” moment, but everyone else will just be embarrassed.

Embarrassed by the U.S. Constitution? What is the point of even reading it then? Just as a transparently insincere show? I suppose so. Meanwhile the two “Profiles in Courage”, Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit blather on trying to seek favor with Charles Johnson.

Luka on January 6, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Missy,

could you explain how much different it is to require you to buy auto insurance as a condition for you being allowed to drive a car and requiring you to buy health insurance as a condition for allowing you to utilize health care facilities receiving government funding in whole or in part?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

audiculous
Not to step on Missy’s toes, but the biggest differences are that:
1) As stated earlier, the requirement for auto insurance is done at the state level.
2) The mandatory requirement for auto insurance covers your liability if you injure another person or damage their property. Additional insurance is usually required by the loan guarantor as a condition of the loan to protect their property, but not by the state.

In the case of health insurance, there is no liability to others if I choose to pay my bill in cash.

Hazzard on January 6, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Here’s my two cents: Regardless weather or not the current holder of the office at 1600 Pennsylvania has a long form BC or not, more Americans than ever before now know that a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is a requirement to hold the office of the presidency. This alone is worth the whole can of worms this has opened.

shar61 on January 6, 2011 at 8:40 PM

I’m stuck on that definition.

audiculous

Stuck on stupid is more like it. Be careful, or you’ll make that loser cr66 jealous.

xblade on January 6, 2011 at 8:43 PM

first, as I said, we are not paying FOR, we are paying TO

quid pro quo we pay TO because we get something. there’s no distinction here.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM

more Americans than ever before now know that [being] a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is a requirement to hold the office of the presidency.

shar61 on January 6, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Unless you are Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, I so hope I didn’t upset Ed Morrissey, Allahpundit and Charles Johnson!

Luka on January 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM

that’s such tiresome drivel and it takes a fairly obtuse type of jackarse to spew it out.

audiculous

I suspect you do get tired of being reminded of your mental issues,lol.

xblade on January 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM

quid pro quo we pay TO because we get something. there’s no distinction here.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM

and what we GET is a “common defense”, the power for which is is expressly delegated to the federal government. Please note that it is also a specific power that the feds have been given permission to lay and collect taxes to provide.

In other words, YES the feds can charge us to hire soldiers. YES, they can then pay those soldiers in anyway necessary to complete the contract.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Aristotle said that the ability to create perfect analogies is a sign of genius. You’re not a genius.

crr6 on January 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Did Aristotle say anything about repeating bad jokes? Because that seems to be a large part of your ethos.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I had to go back and read the title of this thread as it seems to have taken a different turn. For some reason, I thought it was about the heckler(birther, as it is known here)during the reading of the constitution, when someone referred to Obama.

silvernana on January 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM

I think it’s because most people here think that people that question Obama’s place of birth aren’t worth discussing…They don’t want to be thought of as wacko…I, personally, don’t think Obama is a natural born citizen even if he was born in the U.S. which I don’t think he was….

theaddora on January 6, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Daddy was a British subject, yet no one addresses that. They like to focus on the birth certificate which means absolutely nothing in the eligibility debate. People just like to hang with the cool kids.

shar61 on January 6, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Fighton03,

as long as you understand that our representatives in Congress buy things for us with the money that they are authorized them to take from us, then you can understand that we buy things other tan military services.
Right in there in Art I, it expressly says that they can tax to acquire things they deem to be for the general welfare.
That’s a broad grant of authority.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Doesn’t matter that it made Cole look like a fool. It’s a bowl of buttered biscuits to libs needing clever talking points to share with their morning lattes… okay croissants! (I like biscuits, have your lawyer call mine!) And I think Pallone was a pretty good prompter for it. The smarter than smart prodded him to his Marc Antony moment not praising the One but pulling his time sheet, an excellent touche’ to the peanut gallery of the unwashed showing the right for their ridiculousness, blah, blah.
Here’s the thing Ed; I wasn’t impressed with the whole, “He’s not an Amurcan!” thing because I figured if the film review wasn’t good enough for MLB (at the time) then the call stuck, American Pravda or no.
But then I thought, sure its possible. Done all the time by desperates or low lifes like Chair…person Barry and his ilk, hating but raping this country at every opportunity. Clever too posting in two locals but no Manchurian prophesies at the time, just stick’n it to the man so to speak.
Ah digression. Fruit of the gods. Loom gods.
I think that last part was accutremental foreboding. I’ll call Politico.
Can I just change my name to “Mixed McMetaphors”? Or is that taken?

onomo on January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Daddy was a British subject, yet no one addresses that.
shar61

The people who wrote the Constitution had been British subjects. As had most of their daddies.

Read the thing, you might see that it doesn’t matter at all where someone’s paternal allegiance happens to be.

Learn something, it’s cool!

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Can I just change my name to “Mixed McMetaphors”? Or is that taken?

onomo

try changing your name to teppichfresser might suit ya.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Right in there in Art I, it expressly says that they can tax to acquire things they deem to be for the general welfare.
That’s a broad grant of authority.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Actually it is a broad assumption of power. In paragraph one, they are allowed to spend money collected to promote the general welfare. This could, and until the early 20th century was considered to mea that the appropriation law passed by congress was first within it’s authority to do so.

The power granted was specifically to lay and collect taxes. The remainder is a clarification, and in fact a limitation on how the money could be spent.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Fighton03,

yes, they were limited to only raising and spending money for things that they didn’t think would harm the general welfare.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM

The people who wrote the Constitution had been British subjects. As had most of their daddies.

Read the thing, you might see that it doesn’t matter at all where someone’s paternal allegiance happens to be.

Learn something, it’s cool!

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Oh? so you’re saying it doesn’t matter because Obama was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution?

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Fighton03,

yes, they were limited to only raising and spending money for things that they didn’t think would harm the general welfare.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM

thus following this logic all other strictures placed by the constitution are moot.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 9:44 PM

not quite what I’m saying, Fighton03.

what I was trying to impress upon that rather confused person was that there is not,in the Constitution, and was never meant to be anything debarring anybody from office because their daddy was a British subject.

I would hope that is now clear enough for you.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Ooh nice audiculous. Worn with honors.

onomo on January 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM

thus following this logic all other strictures placed by the constitution are moot.

Fighton03

nope, nope, nope. where do you get that from?

all other expressed strictures that the Constitution lists that serve to debar the Congress from raising money and spending it remain in force.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:54 PM

I would hope that is now clear enough for you.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM

not really, considering the other poster is debating the definition of “natural born”, and the only option the constitution gives to “natural born” is to have been a citizen at adoption.

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Worn with honors.

onomo

perhaps you mean worn with impressive masticative gusto.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:01 PM

all other expressed strictures that the Constitution lists that serve to debar the Congress from raising money and spending it remain in force.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:54 PM

unless of course it will promote the general welfare (by your argument).

Fighton03 on January 6, 2011 at 10:02 PM

only option the constitution gives to “natural born” is to have been a citizen at adoption.

Fighton03,

nope, that’s not correct. the meaning of “natural born” is that of a citizen of one of the states of the US at the time of one’s birth.

people who became citizens of one of the states, after being citizens of some other country, immediately before the adoption of the Constitution were barred from Congress for a term of years and permanently barred from the presidency.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:09 PM

unless of course it will promote the general welfare (by your argument).

Fighton03

and you maintain your ability to err.

specific prohibitions will overcome a general grant of authority.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Looks like someone is earning some troll overtime hours today. So does George Soros pay time and a half if you go over 40 hrs a week?

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:12 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 10:09 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:54 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:24 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 7:19 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:21 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 5:04 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 4:04 PM
audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 3:52 PM

angryed on January 6, 2011 at 11:07 PM

poor angry ed,

can count but can’t much read if he thinks that discussing the powers of the government with people here is something done to hurt his angry little ‘ead.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM

poor angry ed,

can count but can’t much read if he thinks that discussing the powers of the government with people here is something done to hurt his angry little ‘ead.

audiculous on January 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Do you practice being obnoxious or does it come naturally?

theaddora on January 7, 2011 at 12:24 AM

theaddora, you want to read angryed’s comment and explain why that was not obnoxious and deserving of the sort of reply it received?

(natural and practiced, BTW)

audiculous on January 7, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Happyfeces, welcome back.

Inanemergencydial on January 7, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3