I Don’t Worry About The Constitution – Phil Hare (D-IL)
by Big Dog on Apr 2, 2010 at 09:39 Political
Representative Phil Hare, Democrat from Illinois was answering a few questions from constituents and when asked about the Constitutionality of the health care plan he said “I don’t worry about the Constitution.”
Here is a person who was elected to office and who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution saying that he did not worry about the Constitution. Bingo.
None of them do.
When asked where in the Constitution Congress was given the authority to do what it did he answered that he believed that the Constitution gave the right to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps this explains why the Congressman does not care about the Constitution. Maybe it is because he swore to uphold it and has no idea what it actually says.
He is no different from any of the others who think they can do what they want without regard to our Constitution.
[note]If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28[/note]
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, lies, phil hare, tyranny, usurper
Frankly, a federal official not knowing what’s in the Constitution is grounds for summary removal from office. In particular, a legislator should be able to cite the 17 enumerated powers of Congress from memory. But then, Barack Hussein Obama has demonstrated such contempt for the Constitution that his henchmen in Congress probably feel quite safe in their ignorance.
Then again, it’s not a new disease. I can barely remember a time when Congress even paid the Constitution lip service, and I’m an old man. The document has been made into toilet paper, and thus has died the validity of the contract of the American people with those who are supposed to represent them.
Phil Hare is a small fry freshman. Boehner, the republican minority leader did the exact same thing in November. People make mistakes.
The only people who need to worry themselves about the constitution are the ones who get to decide what it means and thus get to decide when it’s tenets are being usurped. That would be the supreme court. Anything else is just hand wringing and grand standing.
D.
—————
“House Minority Leader John Boehner was fired up and ready to go at the Tea Party rally today.
He even held up his pocket copy of the Constitution, pledging to “stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the pre-amble: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident …”
Oops.
That would be the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence that he’s reading.” Link.
It is one thing to make the mistake. It is another to make the mistake while saying you do not worry about the Constitution.
The Constitution is important to everyone and not just to those who interpret what it means.
There are basic truth in there that are supported by what the writers said about it. If a framer said this line means this and only this it would be dereliction of duty for a court to say it means something else. And we could impeach them.
This is why 5 liberals should have been removed for the Kelo decision which contradicts the Constitution and, like one of the Justices, I would not allow that to take place with my home.
But I digress. This is also why states make laws that go contrary to SCOTUS decisions. To keep things like Kelo from happening.
Anyway, it should matter to us all what it says. The idea that it does not is what makes Congress write bills that contradict the document.
If I were Speaker, I would allow no bill that did not contain the section of the Constitution that authorizes what the bill wants.
A lot of people make that mistake BTW, but justifying a small fry who swore to uphold and protect the Constitution, by showing someone else who made the administrative mistake (but not the one that is contrary to his oath) is deflection.
Both contained the mistake, one contained the bad behavior.
Immigrants are required to know more about the Constitution than that fat pig Hare- but it IS symptomatic of the contempt and outright ignorance the progressives display wantonly about the process and workings of our government.
This is NOT a DEMOCRACY- that is an ignorant fallacy- WE ARE A REPUBLIC. There is a difference, and if you do not know this, you should not be in our government.
You are part of the problem.