Secrets of the City

The constitution doesn’t tell congress what to do.

Bachmann is a maroon [sic].

But I think anyone could admit that the “general welfare” statement in the Preamble might, at times, get interpreted rather broadly.

The Constitution doesn’t tell Congress what to do, but it should tell them what they can’t do, shouldn’t it?

What Ms. Bachmann knows about the constitution could be printed on a 3×3 post-it note™.

Yes, Rat, good point. Throw the pre-amb at her!

> The Constitution doesn’t tell Congress what to do, but it should tell them what they can’t do, shouldn’t it?

Well, the original constitution didn’t tell congress what not to do, but the founders realized they should have done so, so they attached ten amendments outlining the things the gov’t ought not to do.

I saw you at the thing, Doug, but I didn’t feel like screaming HEY DOUG! You were like four chairs over and two rows up.

so they attached ten amendments outlining the things the gov’t ought not to do.

Yet they continually run perilously close to being afowl of the 10th, if not blatantly in defiance of it.

“Throw the pre-amb at her!”

I’m far from a Constitutional expert so I can’t say one way or another that she doesn’t have a point.

I get the idea, though that much of what what goes on today in government is probably unconstitutional.

That said, I’m not sure I’d want to live in a country that strictly adhered to the Constitution. It seems to me, a guide, and we can try to get close.

You don’t have to be a constitutional expert to find the text and read it online. It is mostly about how government works, not what it does. Not much that doesn’t directly violate process or the bill of rights is “unconstitutional.” You might say it is “nonconstitutional,” but pretty much everything government does is “nonconstitutional” because, as I said, the constitution doesn’t tell government what to do. I have a feeling most of the people howling about the constitution haven’t read it, or they would scratch their heads. What is constitutional? Having elections, sending legislators to Washington. What’s nonconstitutional? Pretty much everything they do once they get there.

But don’t take my word for it or make claims of your own ignorance while also declaring that most of what government does is “unconstitutional.” Just read the damn thing.

The constitution is like the owner’s manual to a car. It might tell you how it works, but it doesn’t tell you where to go. And just because a particular destination isn’t in the owner’s manual doesn’t mean you can’t drive there.

I notice that strict constructionists lost interest in the constitution when Bush was president. Perplexing how people can’t get anxious about the swelling of government when they are merely tapping your phones, but try and give some kid health insurance and they start bringing their automatic weapons to town hall meetings.

Bravo, kurtis!

I’m also perplexed as to how attempting to extend health insurance to millions of people is somehow equivalent to plans to exterminate millions of people.

Guys, have a little respect, Bachmann did attend one of the country’s premier short-lived law schools in the country, Oral Roberts University. I think she knows what she’s talking about when it comes to the constitution. Unlike that retired UChicago constitutional law prof in charge of the country.

Why does this tax lawyer rarely weigh in on tax issues? And, by weigh in, I mean something of substance other than “no more taxes!”

Also, how is permitting Michele Bachmann to speak constitutional? Since when have robots been granted the same rights as humans (who blink!)? Plus, there’s no proof she was assembled in the US (although, due to shoddy engineering, I’m inclined to say that she was).

Re: strict constructionists

The thing about strict constructionists I don’t understand are the ones who also continue support checks in balances and the constitution being able to be amended. If you believe this, then aren’t you pretty much conceding that the document is, in fact, living? Also, if you’re a strict constructionist who sees no problem with the amendment abolishing slavery, you’re not a strict constructionist. If you do see a problem with it, you’re a strict constructionist and a strict asshole.

Yeah, the founding fathers may not have intended the constitution to mandate equal marriage rights but they also did not intend for a black man’s vote to be worth more than 60% of a white man’s. So, I guess, if you think about it, to a strict constructionist, Obama’s presidency totally is unconstitutional. Huh. Those stupid birthers have been making the wrong Obama’s presidency is unconstitutional argument all along.

Also, it was pretty great when Whoopi asked View guest strict constructionist John McCain about slavery being legalized. Google it.

I was going to dismiss this as another Bachmann-crazy thing, but it does make me think of one thing that concerns me:

I don’t have any problem it all – of course, want – government providing health care for all (UK), insurance for all (single-payer), insurance for some (medicare), or insurance subsidies (watered-down Democrat plan). I think all of these things are well within government’s role and better than what we’re doing now.

What does concern me is forcing people to buy insurance from private insurers. I don’t know that it’s anything close to unconstitutional – at least, we’re forced to buy car insurance (to drive) or smoke alarms (to have a house), but there’s something about having to buy something *no matter what* from about the most evil, monopolized, high-profit companies in existence that doesn’t sit so well with me. I’m for big government when it’s for people, not companies.

Ordering you to buy something and then dictating who you can and cannot buy it from is exactly why a government take over of health care is perhaps the worst idea ever conceived. Since Saved by the Bell: The College Years, at least.

Now honestly – Aren’t you good folks in Minnesota just a tad embarrassed by Michelle Bachmann? And you have such a great state there! Pity.

The other day, I received an interesting and very instructive e-mail from my brother Jeff who lives in France. He asked me to share it with the readers of my blog. I think I will share it with you also.

“HELLO, AMERICA!

“As an American who has been living in Europe for most of the last 20 years, one who has visited doctors numerous times in four different countries, whose two children were brought into this world in European hospitals (France and England), who has himself spent a week in a public British hospital, and who underwent an operation in a private British clinic, I think I can say a thing or two about health care in Europe.

“Our out of pocket expenses for the births? Zero, even though in France my wife spent 5 days in the hospital after the birth, which is standard, by the way.

“During the three years we lived in England, we never once paid for medicine for our children. Children get drugs for free in the UK. Visits to the GP are free for everybody.

“My expenses for the week in the NHS hospital? Zero.

“The cost of the operation in the private clinic? Zero, it was covered by my work insurance, as was the post-op physical therapy I needed.

“In Western Europe you would never be forced to sell your home in order to pay for your medical bills, as happens all too often in America when catastrophic illness strikes and the insurance company decides that your condition was ‘pre-existing’.

“The quality of the care? Mostly good. French hospitals are excellent, even the food is decent. The food at the NHS hospital was beyond awful, but then again most English food is pretty bad (though they do have great Indian food). At night, they were understaffed, but I am guessing that, apart from that place where Dr. House works, most American hospitals are understaffed at night, too.

“In short, in the US, you pay more, get less, and die younger than we do in Europe. What part of that don’t you understand?

“My fellow Americans, you have nothing to fear except those who would use fear to keep you enslaved to the myth of the might of the American health care system.”

Jeff Degan

What can I tell you? The guy is a Communist. Not only does he live in France, he actually likes it there. An eternal shame to our family’s good name. Let us boil down his seven paragraphs to their juicy essentials, shall we?

HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY SUCKS.

Here is (Excuse me, I meant to say, “Here was“) a golden opportunity for real reform and the idiotic Americans are screaming about socialism. Is it any wonder that we have become the laughingstock of the Western world?

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

PS – I love English food!

“PS – I love English food!”

Maybe it’s given you the Gift of Gab like the Brits have.

Could have got it from the food, or the hospitals, I guess.

“I’m also perplexed as to how attempting to extend health insurance to millions of people is somehow equivalent to plans to exterminate millions of people.” – well said, as am I!

LOL@Tom – NHS hospital food is meant to taste bad to encourage you to leave the free bed and go home!