<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Barely a "gotcha" 

I think all the fomented dudgeon over Rep. Hare's remarks is silly. While I'm quite sure I'd disagree with Hare in many ways, and he's not very articulate when badgered like this (who is?), he isn't making an argument for simply dismissing the Constitution.

Whether he's capable of making a coherent positive argument for healthcare reform instead of mouthing the "millions dying" pablum - that's another matter.

I'm all in favor of videocams and being on the record, but recognize you aren't looking for someone's best argument when you get in his face like a paparazzi. The whole "punch back twice as hard thing" makes me a little sad. If you think people are behaving ridiculously, why would you imitate them? There's got to be a better way.

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.

15 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Apr 03, 12:04:00 PM:

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Every Congressperson should be reminded everyday of their oath to uphold the Constitution in relation to their votes on legislation. It should be the first hurdle in any analysis.

Our failure to hold them accountable and at least get a serious response, even if it's "I'll get back to you" is the reason they don't take it seriously.

Embarrassing them now may make them at least think about it the next time.  

By Blogger "Mindles H. Dreck", at Sat Apr 03, 12:55:00 PM:

Accepting your premise that they should be reminded of their oath daily, is this the way to do it?

Surely you think any leader who sends soldiers to way should be reminded of their duty to those soldiers daily. Would you do it this way?  

By Blogger "Mindles H. Dreck", at Sat Apr 03, 12:55:00 PM:

sorry - that was supposed to be "in harm's way"  

By Anonymous Roy Mustang, at Sat Apr 03, 01:06:00 PM:

Rep. Hare was quite clear. He thinks ObamaCare will save lives. And he values that above the Constitution.

He is dismissing the Constitution and the rule of law in order to impose his morality on others.  

By Blogger "Mindles H. Dreck", at Sat Apr 03, 03:05:00 PM:

When I listened to it, I though he could easily have intended, in his own addled mind, that he "wasn't worried" that the constitutionality of the law would be successfully challenged.

We lived through years of people intentionally over-interpreting Bush's rather awkward pronouncements. I'm not sure we should visit that on anyone.

I'm not sure how to charitably interpret the "Guam capsizing" comment, though. Other than to feel sorry for the guy. And those he represents.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Apr 03, 04:31:00 PM:

1st commenter back at you: How else do we make an impact on the Nancy Pelosi "are you serious?" types regarding the constitutional basis for Federal healthcare mandates? Call their office? Write a letter to the editor? Do you expect Rep. Hare on Meet the Press or Charlie Rose anytime soon?

Yes Nancy, damn right we're serious.

And I can sympathize with some political machine hack who doesn't know the Constitution from the Declaration only so far. If he's too dense for this level of critical thinking he can refer his questioners to his staff or his wife.

I heard some flack on TV poo-pooing the Obamacare Constitutional issues because the Dems have a lot of smart lawyers on their staff and Obama is a law professor. Seriously, that was their argument, so move along nothing to see here.

It's not a trivial issue and if every questioner asks every Representative who voted for Obamacare this question at every interview it will become top-of-mind and only then will they take it seriously.  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Sat Apr 03, 04:36:00 PM:

anon 12:04 is spot on.

Every piece of legislation should show what provision of the Constitution grants them the authority to enact it.

Anyway Mindles, I think you are giving Hare a pass for being honest.

We will have to agree to disagree.  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Sun Apr 04, 12:46:00 AM:

Good call. Look, Bush II did things that might wind up testing the Constitution for the sake of the defense (a form of general welfare). It's not for legislators to over-worry about the Constitution, but to legislate on behalf of their constituents within the margins of error and let the Court define it more precisely ... thus is Constitutiona Law made precise. The Commerce Clause is absurdly encompassing presently. And he was flustered in terms of the interview.


That said, I think the mandate to purchase will be cound unconstitutional 8-1 or at worst 6-3. It's not a close call in my opinion. We all effect inter-state commerce by breathing whilst citizens. I think this corrupts the entire Obamacare regime structurally as well as assuredly financially.

If it does pass muster, it's a concerning centralization of power in D.C. [the only place with appreciating real estate in the USA over the last 3 years]. With the media, business, non-union labor, individual rights, state rights, schools choice, minority party rights, etc. all under siege, we travel quickly on the road to serfdom Hayek mapped, subject to the hysterical and corrup whims of an increasingly uneducated minority.

Fortunately, the statistics seem fairly pure, i.e., GDP, unemployment, interest rates, etc.  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Sun Apr 04, 12:48:00 AM:

Uneducated majority, I meant.

Also, the point I make is that the Commerce Clause has not been considered that encompassing, i.e., to breath in a state and not buy something counts. 8-1 unconstitutional ... Ginsburg would be in that majority - prediction.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Apr 04, 01:07:00 AM:

I think the Constitutional wonders of the "Kelo" decision should give us all pause in thinking that the Supreme Court really knows what they are doing all the time. And frankly, for someone (me) who is a non-lawyer and not educated in the law, that was an easy one, that the Supreme Court "over-thought" and managed to synthesize something that directly contradicts the 4th Amendment.

They reasoned backward from the outcome that they wanted, and they can do it again on health care and the individual mandate. Don't think that this is not on the mind of many people in the so-called Obama Administration.

-David  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Apr 04, 08:27:00 AM:

Playing "gotcha" with people like Hare is intended only to reveal basic motivations, not his best rhetorical argument. He probably can't make a better argument anyway, even if he were given time and a congenial forum, so one shouldn't expect much from him anyway- he's an apparatchik, not a propagandist. The video is still very informative though, since it clearly illlustrates his basic devotion to ends over means, something he may well hold in common with his party leadership. He really doesn't think of first principals in anything other than a transitory way, just as his Congressional leadership believes the Constitution and our founding principles generally are beside the point in this debate.

Having said that I agree one would get far better put defenses of Obamacare elsewhere, and under different circumstances. Take it for what the video is worth, and don't expect more.  

By Anonymous alanstorm, at Sun Apr 04, 10:21:00 AM:

He was badgered? Excuse me? He chose this line of work - if he expected it to be sans badgering, the kindest thing you could say is that he was mislead. And if he went through an election to get to his current position, that misconception should have been erased quite a while ago.

Sorry, he gets no free pass.  

By Anonymous Noel, at Sun Apr 04, 10:33:00 AM:

Hamilton helped the Tory president of Kings College escape when a Sons of Liberty mob came to tar and feather him.

Yes, this was rude, but it was no violent mob. They describe themselves as Glenn's "Army of Davids". The Constituion was what we all put in place to avoid undue political strife.

When Hare says he isn't "worried" about it, he means you must obey his laws under the Constitution, but he is free to ignore your rights under it. Expect some strife, even bad manners.

And he's got it exactly backwards. If something is big, you don't ignore the Constitution; because something is big, you make sure you follow the Constitution.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Apr 04, 01:05:00 PM:

What is lost in badgering someone like Hare anyway? Too many of us have gone too long taking Congress for granted. Too many assume Congress wouldn't act in any sort of malignant way, or purposely damage the basic fabric of our political fabric.

Now we know those assumptions are wrong. Citizens have every right to get after these people, and sitting civilly by would only invite them to do worse.  

By Blogger Dan Kauffman, at Mon Apr 05, 08:12:00 AM:

" By Blogger "Mindles H. Dreck", at Sat Apr 03, 12:55:00 PM:

Accepting your premise that they should be reminded of their oath daily, is this the way to do it?"

I prefer members of Congress who do not have to be reminded of the Constitution, if that is necessary then they need to be reminded of it as often as it is necessary to get the point across. When they act in opposition to the Constitution they should be called on that. Don't want anyone in government who only takes the Constitution into account when they find it convenient.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?