Someone asked Nancy Pelosi to explain by what Constitutional authority she was able to dictate to Americans that they have health care. Great question, by the way, and one that I have discussed previously.
Her answer was quite revealing.
Rather than tell the truth that there is no such Constitutional authority, she exclaimed. "Are your serious?"
Right back at you. Either you don't know the Constitution well enough to know the true answer to this question, or you were indignant that someone called you out on it.
Either way, it's nice to know that we are being led by a Congress that is being led by the clueless.
───
For more information on my coaching and educational programs and services, visit my website stevehoffacker.com or go to my other blog homesalesinsights.com for additional sales tips, insights, and commentary. You can also listen to my free podcast messages at Steve Hoffacker's Happenings.
© Steve Hoffacker, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
Steve,
Personally I believe Mrs. Polosi has read and most probably understands The Constitution of the United States of America thus the no answer.
Ross,
Oh, she may have read it, but if she understood it she couldn't do what she is doing. :)
Steve
Steve,
Not trying to fight with you but your "if" is what I have a problem with. I do believe she understands and is still following this path.
Ross,
Didn't understand your position. I agree. :)
Steve
I thought Obama was a Constitutuional expert? Seems they all need to take a reading course.
Steve...
It is the blind leading the blind... taking a noncommittal road is easier than standing your ground on something that you know most won't agree with.
Steve Beware the clueless can be dangerous!
I hope you have a great week,
Paul
sTEVE,
i WOULD HOPE THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST WHEN MS. PELOSI STARTED HER CAREER IN POLITICS SHE HAD GOULD INTENTIONS, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THE POWER WENT TO HER HEAD AND i DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE CITIZENS ANYMORE ITS ALL ABOUT HER AGENDA AND HER RAMRODDING THE BILLS THROUGH NO MATTER WHAT.
Sorry about the capitials still getting used to my new keyboard
Steve
It's a sad state of affairs, clueless in Washington is the standard operating norm, but they are being called on it and they don't like it. Time to clean house.
Good luck and success.
Lou Ludwig
I know the answer... I don't like it, but I know what the (Democrat) party line is... But of course the reply is the 10th Amendment... that is the one the Democrats don't like.
Does anyone see the liberal slant in fact check besides me?
From fact check:
"Q: Are the health care overhaul proposals that are pending in the House and Senate constitutional?
A: Legal experts agree that requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept that has not been tested in the courts."
What a lame answer! Novel concept eh? No kidding! We've never been forced to purchase anything!
"Another argument is made by critics that the government can't make an individual buy something just because he or she exists. The "economic liberty" argument harkens back to the early 1900s..."
"Democrats in the House and Senate have framed the mandate as a tax provision, which might have the effect of helping the bill dodge some of the constitutional showdowns. After all, lawmakers have the power "to levy taxes and spend funds" for the "general welfare of the United States." In the House bill, the amount is a percentage of income, with some adjustments. In the Finance Committee version, it is a flat fee."
"But David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, lawyers who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, say that calling the fee a "tax" is "congressional trickery" and that the levy is "clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power." They add that "a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans."
"There's little doubt that if the health care legislation passes and requires citizens to buy health insurance, it will be challenged in court. The final pronouncement may well be up to the nine justices who preside in the chamber right across the street from the Capitol."
Folks, our freedoms are very much under attack by those in power. pelosi knows that she can do what she wants if the bench rules in her favor. These pigs don't have to rewrite the Constitution, just interpret it how they want to. This is what obama is doing.
Bonnie,
I think Ross is right. They are trying to get away with something that they hope we don't know, won't notice, or won't care. :)
Steve
Valerie,
Two things regardless of where anyone stands on health care reform: it is not constitutional (but that has never stopped them before) and we can't afford it (also not a show-stopper). :)
Steve
Paul,
Absolutely true. :)
Steve
Hugh,
Good intentions do not equate with poor judgment or ill-conceived ideas. :)
Steve
Lou,
If only the American people would really follow-through on the idea of starting with a clean slate. Whatever gains we make will be good. :)
Steve
Lane,
The 10th Amendment exists in conjunction with Article I, Section 8 - only 17 powers are expressly given to the Congress, and this isn't one of them. :)
Steve
Georgia,
The only problem I see with a Supreme Court showdown is that many of them are social architects who probably want this enacted and will see some way in the law to allow it. :)
Steve
While I'm on this vein, let me add this...
Fact check:
"...rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That's false, as we've explained many times."
But fact check is LYING. In the Senate bill their is a section that speaks clearly of limiting/rationing. It is in the bill (as of right now) so cannot be disputed.
"...free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too."
Poor job of lying above. An illegal receiving care in "any hospital ER" IS "getting subsidies for their care"!! Who does fact check think pays for the hospital ER services? You see, they are relying on the fact that it is STATE or COUNTY subsidies and not federal to pass this off. It is ALL TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES!
"...free abortion services." It's true that private insurance purchased with the help of federal subsidies could cover abortions, as could a proposed "public option" plan run by the government. But neither would be free. The bill also says abortions would have to be paid for with money from policyholders' premium payments, and not taxpayer money."
Again, trickery in their wording and a LIE. "Could cover abortions"? Pleeeease. It should say "WOULD cover abortion when requested". All you have to do is ask for an abortion. Sure, if you don't ask you won't get one. *roll eyes* "But neither would be free", is an out and out lie. All very low income or no income citizens will not have to pay for their healthcare. So if a person doesn't have to pay for healthcare, how is the abortion not FREE?
Has anyone else taken the time to analyze Fact Check for their slant and outright lies?
The constitution officially died with this administration, and Pelosi and the libs will continue to bury it!
Georgia,
Thanks for the analysis. :)
Steve
Jon,
It's not looking good. On the 2010 election - quickly. :)
Steve