They never even read the monstrosity before ramming it down our throats. Not even the darned author! Max Baucus held a townhall where he admitted what many of us suspected all along. From Flathead Beacon via drudge, the sum of all that was wrong with the process in a few short sentences:
And how pray tell did they know if it was constitutional having not read the bill? The answer: they don't care. The Constitution is now simply a stumbling block to what congresscritters want to do. They go through contortions that make a pretzel seem simple by comparison to argue, if in fact you can call it that, that their actions are constitutional. When asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, legislators had no answer. Many tried and fell flat on their faces. Some Democrats have given answers to such a challenge in a way that can only be labeled as 'stupid.' Some, like Sen. Merkley claim that two words - General Welfare - let them do whatever they want thus rendering the rest of the Constitution irrelevant. John Conyers claimed a nonexistent "good and welfare" clause, among other clauses he couldn't name. And then there was Phil Hare, who said"I don't worry about the Constitution on this". Of course he doesn't. Pelosi had a better answer: "are you serious?" That was it. Sen. Leahy says that nobody questions such authority (I beg to differ). Sen. Warner totally dodged the question by talking about telephones. Sen. Mary Landrieu dodged the question altogether instead referred the questioner to constitutional lawyers! Sen. Blanch Lincoln claimed that the U.S. Constitution charges Congress with "the health" of the people. Pro-life traitor Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), who traded the lives of unborn babies for 30 pieces of silver, can't even answer that question before he was re-asked by CNS News. And Sen. Bob Casey is not sure if there's 'a specific Constitutional provision'. Don't you all feel much better now about the Constitutional competence of our lawmakers now? The White House, of course, claims no 'legitimate' constitutional concern. Obama himself said that he doesn't really care how things get done as long as they do. So who's left to defend our founding document? The courts. Unfortunately, the same politicians that have abdicated their oath to uphold the constitution have been appointing activist judges to do the same.
Max Baucus, by the way, is the same one that admitted that ObamaCare has nothing to do with actual heralthcare, but rather the redistribution of wealth: Video of Sen. Max Baucus: ObamaCare bill "will have the effect of addressing (the) mal-distribution of income in America"
But don't you dare call it socialism! Funny how statements like this come out after the bill is passed. Pelosi was right when she said "We Have to Pass Our Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"
We already know what's in it because it has been tried before and shown to be an utter failure:
"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."I'm having John Conyers flashbacks:
And how pray tell did they know if it was constitutional having not read the bill? The answer: they don't care. The Constitution is now simply a stumbling block to what congresscritters want to do. They go through contortions that make a pretzel seem simple by comparison to argue, if in fact you can call it that, that their actions are constitutional. When asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, legislators had no answer. Many tried and fell flat on their faces. Some Democrats have given answers to such a challenge in a way that can only be labeled as 'stupid.' Some, like Sen. Merkley claim that two words - General Welfare - let them do whatever they want thus rendering the rest of the Constitution irrelevant. John Conyers claimed a nonexistent "good and welfare" clause, among other clauses he couldn't name. And then there was Phil Hare, who said"I don't worry about the Constitution on this". Of course he doesn't. Pelosi had a better answer: "are you serious?" That was it. Sen. Leahy says that nobody questions such authority (I beg to differ). Sen. Warner totally dodged the question by talking about telephones. Sen. Mary Landrieu dodged the question altogether instead referred the questioner to constitutional lawyers! Sen. Blanch Lincoln claimed that the U.S. Constitution charges Congress with "the health" of the people. Pro-life traitor Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), who traded the lives of unborn babies for 30 pieces of silver, can't even answer that question before he was re-asked by CNS News. And Sen. Bob Casey is not sure if there's 'a specific Constitutional provision'. Don't you all feel much better now about the Constitutional competence of our lawmakers now? The White House, of course, claims no 'legitimate' constitutional concern. Obama himself said that he doesn't really care how things get done as long as they do. So who's left to defend our founding document? The courts. Unfortunately, the same politicians that have abdicated their oath to uphold the constitution have been appointing activist judges to do the same.
Max Baucus, by the way, is the same one that admitted that ObamaCare has nothing to do with actual heralthcare, but rather the redistribution of wealth: Video of Sen. Max Baucus: ObamaCare bill "will have the effect of addressing (the) mal-distribution of income in America"
Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America. -Max Baucus
We already know what's in it because it has been tried before and shown to be an utter failure:
Sent from my iPhone
No comments:
Post a Comment