Patrick Leahy – Democratic Dolt of the Day

[4sarge]

Patrick Leahy – Democratic Dolt of the Day

Via HotAir.com

Now comes Sen. Patrick Leahy-(D), who apparently has never taken the time to read the constitution. When asked by a reporter about the authoritah of the feds to impose the purchase of health insurance, he became an idiot once again showed his ignorance.

Q: I just want to know where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
LEAHY: What — we have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
Q: I’m asking –
LEAHY: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.
Q: But where — I mean, which –
LEAHY: Where do we have authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
Q: Well, the states do that.
LEAHY: No, no, the federal government does that.
​

Well, actually, they don’t set those limits now, although they did in the past. The answer to that question is that the federal government built the interstate highway system, and that Americans have the option to use them or not. The government does not make driving on these highways mandatory, nor does it make the purchase of gasoline (which has a federal tax component) mandatory, either.
​

 

[level.eleven]

Do you honestly think a Republican would have given a different answer? Take out healthcare and insert domestic data collection, surveillance, Telco immunity, etc. If anyone in Washington actually cared about the Constitution, don't you think you would have heard a few of them throw it out there once in a while with regards to the healthcare debate? I certainly haven't heard it, doens't mean I couldn't have missed it. The R's aren't going to play the Constitution card because they don't want it to bite them in the *** when they decide to implement another grand boondoggle after the pendulum swings back to the right.

ETA: After giving my post a read it may come across a little hostile. The mood, however, was quite flippant.

 

[Bruenor]

Someone in Virginia an earthquake was just felt, from all those Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

 

[justwondeing01]

Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it is the truth!

 

[4sarge]

Do you honestly think a Republican would have given a different answer? Take out healthcare and insert domestic data collection, surveillance, Telco immunity, etc. If anyone in Washington actually cared about the Constitution, don't you think you would have heard a few of them throw it out there once in a while with regards to the healthcare debate? I certainly haven't heard it, doens't mean I couldn't have missed it. The R's aren't going to play the Constitution card because they don't want it to bite them in the *** when they decide to implement another grand boondoggle after the pendulum swings back to the right.

ETA: After giving my post a read it may come across a little hostile. The mood, however, was quite flippant.

This is NOT a Republican or Democrat thing. If a Republican had said it, it would have read Republican Dolt but Pat Leahy is a card carrying member of the socialist wing of the Democrat party.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

http://www.angrywhiteboy.org/index.php/2009/10/22/patrick-leahy-democratic-dolt-of-the-day/

Well, actually, they don’t set those limits now, although they did in the past. The answer to that question is that the federal government built the interstate highway system, and that Americans have the option to use them or not. The government does not make driving on these highways mandatory, nor does it make the purchase of gasoline (which has a federal tax component) mandatory, either.
​

I could be wrong but I don't believe they actually set the speed limit, they threatened to cut fed funding for roads if the states didn't impose the speed limit that the feds wanted. Which had the same effect but a different way of doing it.

 

[WabashMX5]

LEAHY: Where do we have authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
Q: Well, the states do that.
LEAHY: No, no, the federal government does that.​

​

Well, let's see. The Interstates were partially for civil defense, and partially to facilitate interstate commerce. Seems to me there's express Constitutional authority for both of those (and without employing the usual trick of stretching the Commerce Clause into meaninglessness).

Where's your Constitutional grant of Federal authority, Mr. Leahy? Do you even sufficiently give a damn that you'll disingenuously claim it's Commerce Clause authority? Or, as the above answer suggests, you you claim whatever authori-tah you want, Constitution be damned?

 

[JcJ]

Breitbart.tv » ‘Are You Serious?’: Pelosi Scoffs When Asked Where Constitution Grants Congress Authority to Mandate Purchase of Health Insurance

Pelosi,treasonous whackjob.

CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

 

[Fletch]

I'm honestly surprised that they didn't come back with the Welfare Clause.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is what's typically quoted at me when I bring up the Constitution to a health care "reformer". Not sayin' it's right, but that's what they say.

 

[rambone]

I'm honestly surprised that they didn't come back with the Welfare Clause.

This is what's typically quoted at me when I bring up the Constitution to a health care "reformer". Not sayin' it's right, but that's what they say.

That's what I was thinking. Usually you see a weak/fallacious argument rather than having no argument at all.

Its the same way gun-controllers try to say that the constitution says that only militia are supposed to be armed.

 

[Fletch]

That's what I was thinking. Usually you see a weak/fallacious argument rather than having no argument at all.

Its the same way gun-controllers try to say that the constitution says that only militia are supposed to be armed.

And nowadays you've got a pretty good chance of getting 5 out of 9 Justices to misread it your way.

 

[Dryden]

And nowadays you've got a pretty good chance of getting 5 out of 9 Justices to misread it your way.

Unlike our politicians, at least the Justices READ what is brought before them.