So a woman asks Representative Pete Stark about the problems of declaring health care a right, and Stark says there is basically no limitations on how the federal government can tell people to live their lives. Now, I didn’t watch the video (I got this thing where I don’t like hearing other people talking; every time people talk it just drives me crazy), but it sounds pretty bad. Originally, the Constitution had all sorts of limits as the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the federal government (even though they made theirs), but liberal judges eventually parsed the Constitution into complete meaninglessness.
Most Americans don’t like liberals’ ideas, but we’d have less of a problem if they just followed the rules and only did things actually meant to be allowed by the Constitution or tried to pass amendments where they thought the Constitution was lacking — i.e., it would be nice if they played by the rules. But with liberals, it’s more like playing against someone in a board game who keeps changing the rules willy-nilly to his advantage. They don’t care about getting things done in a fair manner with those who disagree with them (which is most people); the power grab is all that’s important. And now we have a D.C. full of useless dimwits like Stark thinking they have unlimited power to tell everyone what to do. That certainly was not the Founding Father’s intention unless Benjamin Franklin invented a time machine and went into the future and saw what we were like and said to the other Founding Fathers, “What a bunch of jerks. I hate them. Let’s design a system of government that is completely awful and will blow up in their faces because I hate them so much.” But I never heard any constitutional scholar suggest that other than me right now.
It’s like we need a new Constitution that just restates what the other one originally meant in shorter and simpler words. And it will be guarded by a mummy curse, and anyone who tries to interpret new powers for the federal government will be murdered by the mummies of the Founding Fathers. That would be a lot of mummy murder in D.C. right now, but it will settle eventually.
Wrestlers Headless Light Horse Harry Lee, the Dread Pirate Paul Jones, Nekkid Ben Franklin, Wranglin’ Washington, Raging Roger Sherman and Headcrusher Hancock would be scarier than mummies.
Please moderate my comment, Frank. Thanks.
The great thing about their argument is that they have none, but it doesn’t stop them.
If reading the Constitution stops you, don’t read it, deny that anything it says, and curse anyone who disagrees with you.
Ignore,deny, and villify.
1)Ignore
2)Deny
3)Villify opposition as backward rascists.
4)Do whatever you want!
It’s like Calvin Ball , except the results count.
I remember back in 7th grade my US History teacher showed us some low budget educational film in which Ben Franklin got in some time machine or something and somehow transported himself to present day. I don’t remember specifics, I think I was too busy laughing at the premise to actually hear anything that the movie said.
well since the US Constitution is based on the Book Of Leviticus (according to so-called christian scholars David Barton, Sean Hannity and many others) it is ‘probably’ a violation of the Seperation of Church and State concept. (grin)
And because at least one of the Founding Documents that preceded it is based on a LIE, ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL! A child can see that. I think we should split the Country up into Liberal zones and Christian Territories.
Lets start over with a REAL Christian Constitution (from God) in a new Christian country. Not a Theocracy that puts Presbyterians or Baptists in charge. Nor a Catholic country with a Presidential Pope. But a country of Christians, by Christians and for Christians.
My problem with the ‘Original meaning’ is that it is NOT a Christian Document written by Christians, or for Christains.
I foresee two probs:
1) The word has yet to be written that is short enough for a liberal to completely understand, let alone adhere to.
B) Liberals are essentially zombies. How would mummies fare in a war against zombies? Both mummies and zombies move slowly, so it might be a fair match.
I made the mistake of spending a year in law school. During that year, I studied constitutional law. The professor actually had quite a good sense of how absurd the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional law were (the Supreme Court actually spends most of its time interpreting federal statutes). As we came to the end of the discussion of the commerce clause, he actually said, “I defy anybody to give me an example of any action by the federal government that the Court’s interpretation of the commerce clause wouldn’t empower. There may be other sections of the Constitution that bar the action, but the commerce clause, under this interpretation, will always permit it.” Nobody could come up with one. He was right. Now, his point wasn’t that the Constitution actually did allow the federal government to do anything that another section of the Constitution didn’t prohibit; it was that the Supreme Court’s rationale for its decisions did that. He was right. The Supreme Court has been wrong since the 1930s.
Pete Stark is a rude, foul-mouthed bully and lunatic; even the San Francisco Chronicle has run editorials stating that he shouldn’t be re-elected. But his statement lines up perfectly with the Supreme Court’s decisions and stated reasons therefor over the past seventy-five years or so.
Iowa Jim, court packing is yet another reason for my belief that Franklin Roosevelt was the worst President in the history of the United States.
Commiefornistanis are stupid people anyway, but the people who elected this pile are especially retarded. The problem is that their stupidity affect the rest of us. commiefornistan and other marxist states should be expelled from the union.
Burma, how about “NO!” ?
You’re right, they don’t understand that one either.
Ok, lemme try another one:
“Got your nose in my wallet? Is your eye also staring down the barrel of my 12 gauge?”
Hmmm… That one might get through eventually.
Marko –
FDR was actually unsuccessful in court packing. His proposal to expand the Supreme Court and make the number of justices dependent on the ages of the justices never passed. Some attribute this to the fact that Justice Roberts changed his vote so that votes from then on were 5-4 saying that Roosevelt’s programs were constitutional, whereas previously they had been 5-4 (Roberts joined with Justices Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Vandevanter) saying that the programs were unconstitutional. “Court packing”, properly defined, refers to Roosevelts attempt to expand the court using that constitutional amendment. I think that many of the Justices that FDR appointed were dreadful, e.g., Frankfurter, but it’s not the same thing as court packing. Sorry to have produced a bit of a rant, but I’m a bit sensitive on the subject because so many of my lefty friends have accused Republican Presidents of court packing.
My mistake, Iowa Jim, and thanks for the correction!
Of course, it’s a minor reason for my belief….;)
He also stated that the Constitution doesn’t put many limits on government…proving that he’s either never read it or just mentally retarded…or both.
Mummify the zombies, problem solved.
“Court Packing”? That’s a new kind of Packing that I had not heard of but sounds kinky to me!!!
Good call on not watching the vid, Frank. Stark is so dumb I got stupider just hearing him talk.