"I Don't Worry About The Constitution On This"As the man behind the camera says: "Jackpot, Brother!"
Meet Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL). He actually appears to be dumber than the guy who is worried about Guam capsizing.
Very rarely has so much stupid been packed into just a little more than 3 minutes.
Now meet Bobby Schilling, he's the Republican running against Hare.
The district is a Democrat leaning one but not by an insurmountable margin (D+3). It's right next door to the district that's home to Caterpillar's corporate HQ, so I'm guessing the whole $100 million in health care charges thing might come up a time or two during the campaign.
I hope the congressman enjoys his moment in the limelight.
Hasn't this fellow just *admitted* that he perjured himself with his oath of office? Hasn't he just *admitted* that he doesn't belong in Congress ... but may, perhaps, belong in prison?
Is there really *any* Democrat, anywhere, who worries about the Constitution? On any matter?
As a general rule, "liberals" care very much about optional rules, about bureaucratic rules, about rules which are at best of secondary importance (and I think care even more about tertiary rules) -- say, an EPA bureaucratic ruling which effectively shuts down hundreds of square miles of farmland. But, the rules which are primary? The rules which are non-optional? They shrug about those rules.
The Democratic Party *needs* to be destroyed. We can worry about putting the Republican Party out of business on the next day: but if we want America to survive and prosper, we *must* put the Democratic Party out of business, permanently.
=============
In the spirit of the "environmental impact statements" which are now required (under what Constitutional authority?) before most economic development may procede, I offer Gentle Reader --
The 'Constitutional Impact Statement' amendment to The United States Constitution
1) Every bill submitted before Congress shall explicitly defend all its provisions by demonstrating at least one Constitutional power and authority under which each of the provisions is justified.
2) No bill shall be voted upon by Conrgess except it shall have been read aloud, by a living human being, in full, in its final form, in a normal speaking voice, before each Chamber of Congress.
3) No member of Congress who shall not have been physically present for the full and final reading of any bill before Congress shall have the ability to vote upon the bill.
Of course, that third provision does have a bit of a loophole, in that it doesn't require that Congresscritters be attending to the reading, or even that they be awake. The purposes of this provision are to "encourage" the Congresscritters to write short bills, and, in keeping with the spirit of The Founders, to put another roadblock in the way of Congress passing bills in the first place.
But, it's the first and second which shall go furthest in taking back, and securing, our liberty, by requiring and forcing Congresscritters to perform their Constitutional duties to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
Also, we need a Constitutional provision that no new bureaucratic rule may be promulgated or enforced except it has been read in full before Congress and explicitly approved by Congress.
7 comments:
"Is there really *any* Democrat, anywhere, who worries about the Constitution? On any matter?"
Perhaps if the constitution stated that infanticide is acceptable or something depraved like that.
As for getting the vermin to read the bills, i really don't think that a pelosi or obama don't know what's in their bills, seriously why would they not know what's in the bill they're pushing and shoving through.
They know very well how much liberty it erodes, otherwise they wouldn't want it so badly.
The point about requiring reading of the bills (which I probably hadn't yet added to the post at the time you commented) is to slow down "the legislative process," and encourage bills to be short ... and to disallow any polititian's future excuse that he didn't know what was in the bill he voted for.
Judging by his body language, he's lying not only about reading the bill but also about his supposed bankruptcy lawyer friend without insurance.
What do you suppose he thinks they're asking about when he answers that he's "read it three times"? Or is he so unfamiliar with the bill that he doesn't realize he's claiming to have committed the entire month of March to reading it?
I love the idea of your Constitutional Impact amendment, even if it would just force the Dems to go on record about their disregard for the Constitution when they voted it down. Do you think enough citizens care about the Constitution that it would matter?
"What do you suppose he thinks they're asking about when he answers that he's "read it three times"?"
*sheepinh look* I didn't listen long enough to get to that part ... I have a very low tolerance for listening to, or even reading, the sort of thing on display in that video.
"Do you think enough citizens care about the Constitution that it would matter?"
Finding the answer to that is one thing the Tea Party Movement will tell us. If the people showing up are simply protesting the hit to their own pocketbook, the nation is doomed; if the people showing up are simply protesting on *principle* we may ride out the Obamanation storm.
I guess the trick will be showing the connection between the disregard for Constitutional procedures and that hit to the pocketbook -- and the real threat of more to come.
People. Yech.
Yes, it's terrible -- and the cause of so many problems in the world all through history -- that people tend not even to think about the principles of a thing until the quite predictable bad results affect them personally.
As an example: even now, even after a couple of generations of seeing the social and cultural damage wrought by the implementation of “liberal” policies, most of the objections of the current crop of Democrat schemes involve the foolish assertion that we cannot afford to implement these schemes and raise taxes in the midst of a recession -- as though it were merely the fact of being in a recession which makes the schemes unwise-at-the-moment, rather than being foolish at any time
Post a Comment