Constitutional Ignorance Reigns Supreme on Capitol Hill

Hello – is there anybody out there who still believes our leaders in Washington care about what the Constitution of the United States says?  Or what it was intended to mean?  Or even that it exists?  If there actually is anybody out there who still believes this, recent discussions on Capitol Hill about proposed federal legislation should dispel such thought from the minds of even the most die-hard optimists.

Legislation dealing with the delivery and cost of health care in the United States is nearing votes in both houses of the Congress.  Although differing significantly in their details, the primary proposals in both the House and the Senate establish clearly it will be the heavy hand of the federal government, not patients and their doctors, who will be controlling health care decision-making in the decades to come. 

With such a massively expensive and substantively far-reaching piece of legislation being debated at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, one would hope that our “leaders” in Washington, DC might at least pretend to articulate a constitutional justification.  It wouldn’t be that hard, considering the precedents available at least since the 1930s for finding a justification for even the most intrusive government programs and regulations hiding somewhere in that magnificent document.  Even were the infamous “commerce clause” deemed not sufficient to provide a justification for a government program, the always popular “general welfare clause” could be dragged out to provide constitutional cover.

In this age of constitutional ignorance, however, Nanny State proponents don’t even bother pretending to provide a constitutional underpinning for whatever government–based and taxpayer-funded program they advocate.  HR 3962, the massive “Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009,” is almost 2,000 pages long and would spend more than 1.2 trillion taxpayer dollars, but contains nary a reference to the Constitution; no wave of the hand to “general welfare” or even a passing homage to the “commerce clause.” 

In fact, when asked recently by a reporter if the health care bill was “constitutional,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded disdainfully, “Are you serious?  Are you serious?”  Obviously, she never answered the question.

The reason Pelosi never answered the question about the constitutional foundation for the legislation, is because quite simply, there is none.  There is no legitimate basis in the Constitution for the government to control decisions regarding what health care a person receives, what medical services and medications are appropriate for a patient, who is to pay for those services and products and how much they are to cost.  Of course, for a federal government that recently concluded it is proper to bail out some private business but not others, to purchase controlling interest in some corporations but not others, and to honor certain contracts but not others, it’s not really that big a step to directly control individual health care.

The response to another question about the constitutionality of a proposed federal edict is even more revealing of the low esteem in which many congressional leaders hold that once sacred document.  West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Commerce Committee, apparently is peeved about people who “text” with their handheld electronic devices while driving.  Not content to leave responsibility for addressing the problem to the several states, through long-standing laws that allow civil suits and criminal prosecutions of persons who cause accidents while driving negligently (for whatever reason, including being distracted by an electronic device), Rockefeller is proposing federal legislation to ban “texting” while driving. 

At a recent Commerce Committee hearing, during which concerns were raised about the constitutionality of such legislation, and about the principle of “federalism,” Rockefeller proudly proclaimed his constitutional disinterest thus — “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one.  I care about results.”  The “results” include another nail in the coffin of constitutional governance in the United States.

145 comments Add your comment

jt

November 9th, 2009
5:04 pm

The Captain just keel-hauled the silly statist Mark.

I shudder to think of what mandates Mark would have if he was in charge.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
5:08 pm

Captain: I won’t torture everybody at such length.
Supreme Court as the arbiter: I never said that our representative should ignore constitutionality. I am a amazed by the number of Constitutional experts among the critics of the reform. History shows that while many laws are challenged, but few are overturned as unconstitutional, showing that the legislators have a much better understanding of the Constitution that those armchair experts.

The difference between a state and federal law requiring insurance is meaningless when it is a matter of principle. The auto is in most part of the country an essential means of transportation, therefore to force insurance is very comparable to forcing health insurance. As for fulfilling obligation by posting a $50,000 bond, is is pretty much equivalent to being forced to pay a fine in place of buying health insurance. It also involves financial sacrifice.

Your interpretation of the insurance requirements is wrong. There will be no fine if your plan is better than HB.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
5:09 pm

jt: your comment shows your intellectual capacity.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
5:28 pm

Captain: The statement that the 2044 page bill passed by Pelosi and the Radical Left is anything less than a Government takeover of Medical Services in this country is silly on its face, quite meaningless. No matter what the final law may be, the government will not provide any medical services, therefore there cannot be any takeover. Why again that comment about the 2044 pages? Is it beyond the brain capacity of a human? As for the reality in places like France, apparently you know nothing about it. One thing is certain: the people in that country would never exchange their system of health care coverage for ours.

Stumpy

November 9th, 2009
6:09 pm

Dumbest thing I’ve seen in awhile Mark. Completely sidestepping the excellent points Mr Barr makes and calling those who believe the Constitution is the basis of this government is MINDLESS. Then you move on to the obvious straw man fallacy of equating not wanting the Feds running health care with not wanting to help disaster victims. Truly, a cheap and hollow argument.
In truth the General Welfare clause has been used for good things (such as those you cite). But it is also the gateway for the unrelenting push for the Federal Government to take over every aspect of life in this nation. I don’t think it’s wrong to point out when this kind of abuse is happening. And I shouldn’t have to give up the interstates (which I help pay for) to do it. Try some intellectual honesty please!

JR

November 9th, 2009
6:15 pm

According to Mark, it is perfectly acceptable to pass patently unconstitutional legislation and then punt the decision regarding its legality to the Supreme Court. Great logic. Must be an Obama voter.

JR

November 9th, 2009
6:17 pm

Mark, P.S. How can you support legislation you have never read and don’t know what’s in it?

Bob

November 9th, 2009
6:26 pm

Mark, does the constitution have the word democracy in it ? The problem I have with single payer is that it will suck and will only benefit people that vote themselves benefits by electing people that have nothing to offer other than playing robinhood, are you admitting that you have no problem with that.

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
6:35 pm

Mark

November 9th, 2009
2:02 pm
Hard Right Hook: Your arrogance is clearly showing. You think you are a Constitutional expert? I know well what the 10th amendment says.

No, I’m no Consitutional expert.

If you know what the 10th Amendment says, tell us,man! It’s really simple.

But you don’t really know, do you?

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
6:39 pm

PS, Mark. Republic is from the Latin Res Publica.

jt

November 9th, 2009
6:42 pm

KEEL-HAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUL.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
6:46 pm

Stumpy: Do not tell me about intellectual honesty. You have not made any arguments, just stated that I was wrong.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
6:48 pm

JR: Patently unconstitutional? By whose analysis? The constitutional expert JR’s?

Mark

November 9th, 2009
6:51 pm

Hard Right Hook: So what? Why don’t you tell me what was wrong with what I wrote about the republic and representative democracy.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
6:54 pm

Hard Right Hook: Your are getting really funny. You have disovered a secret, the 10th amendment, that nobody knows? You want me to reproduce it here? Come on man, be an adult.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
6:56 pm

Bob:”Does the constitution have the word democracy in it ?” What that has got to do with anything?

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
6:57 pm

Because we do NOT live in a representative democracy. The United States is a representative republic. Most people learn that in 7th grade civics.

Are you going to tell us what the 10th Amendement says or not?

JR

November 9th, 2009
6:59 pm

What does the 10th amendment preclude the federal government from doing? Nothing? Show me the right to privacy in the constitution. The problem with the living document argument is that it means you can literally make up whatever suits your goals with respect to the meaning of the constitution. If you don’t like something in it, then amend it. Again, what is the purpose of the 10th Amendment? You’ve got nothing. Also, please show me an example of successful centralized economic planning. You should read the Road to Serfdom by Hayek. You’re a statist.

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
6:59 pm

If you are not intelligent enough to understand the difference between a democracy (mob rule) and a representative republic, you belong a Bookmans blog, with all the other screaming libtards.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
7:02 pm

JR: Where and when did I say that I supprted any particular legislation? I have been pointing out bad arguments.

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
7:04 pm

JR: I think the right to privacy was taken from the 4th Amendment…..”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects……”

To be sure, better ask Mark.

JR

November 9th, 2009
7:06 pm

When are you going to explain the purpose of the 10th Amendment? You’re making bad arguments and are clearly not an attorney.

JR

November 9th, 2009
7:10 pm

That’s right. The Supreme Court made up the right to privacy 180 years after the 4th Amendment was created. Just made it up out of whole cloth. Utter sophistry.

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
7:24 pm

I was taught the 10 Amendment was to prevent the Feds from “interfering” in matters of the states. In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically authorize the Feds, it remains a states’ right, specically.

And I think it is the most abused Amendment there is.

JR

November 9th, 2009
7:36 pm

This country has been in a death spiral since FDR.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
7:45 pm

Hard Right Hook: People who learned the he United States is a representative republic in 7th grade civics were badly served by their school. The US system can be called a Constitutional republic, or Representative democracy, as opposed to Direct democracy. It was James Madison who defined our republic as representative democracy.

Richard

November 9th, 2009
7:48 pm

Mark wrote: “The difference between a state and federal law requiring insurance is meaningless when it is a matter of principle.”

There is definitely a difference. Things that the federal government is not permitted to do (such as taxing property directly) are reserved to the states. Things that the state is not permitted to do are reserved to the people.

I think the tax itself is easier to prove unconstitutional. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company would easily show the tax is unconstitutional if not an income tax covered by the 16th. The wording directly taxes noncompliance with the “Acceptable Coverage Requirement” subsection. Assuming the Supreme Court could be convinced that lacking insurance is not a source of income (I feel pretty good about the odds on that), Congress would have no constitutional authority to levy the tax. It would also be invalid as an income tax on an identifiable group of individuals, as that would clearly violate equal protection at a minimum.

Hard Right Hook

November 9th, 2009
7:52 pm

November 9th, 2009
7:36 pm
This country has been in a death spiral since FDR.

I think you and I agree. The worst President in the 20th century. Lend Lease, National Recovery Act, court packing, WPA, CCC et al.

What Me Worry

November 9th, 2009
8:46 pm

If the legislature or executive branches (or really the judicial) cared about the constitution we wouldn’t have the FBI setting up straw domestic terror plots so they can knock them down. The New York synagogue plot was staffed by ex-cons, drug addicts, losers and ran by one informant frustrated at the lack of his patsies dedication. Fort Dix plot same thin. How far will the FBI stretch the facts about Fort Hood, how many leaps of logic will some politicians take to make this into a full blown terrorist plot.

What Me Worry

November 9th, 2009
9:13 pm

“For a former Congressman, Bob Barr’s views of the Constitutional Powers are staggering. He joins other mindless people, who ask, whenever they do not like an action of the government, the question “Where in the Constitution …?””-Mark

Barr like many others don’t like it when the government overreaches it’s authority. What pray tell is mindless about trying to keep our government in check?

“The constitutionality of the bill should be the least of the concerns of Mr. Barr and his ilk, because there is such as simple remedy: the Supreme Court.”-Mark

So our legislators lack of constitutional knowledge is fine let them pass what they like and we will work it out in the courts. Dangerous thinking to say the least. As evidenced by our inability to sue telecoms for violating our rights at the behest of the Bush admin. (The Supreme Court lets our rights be violated if given a smoke screen of weak legality. Just in case you wonder why that is dangerous).

A. Kinnebrew

November 9th, 2009
10:44 pm

The fact is that the congress is supposed to consider the constitutionality of a law before passing it.

And the US provides the best health service in the world thanks to our market economy. Lack of profit means lack of motivation means worse service. Even if all the doctors are willing to work hard for less money (yes it will be less money, Medicaid and Medicare only cover up to a set amount and after that the hospital just takes a loss. It happens all the time) they will be losing money and the hospitals will have to either raise prices for people not on the gov plan or close their doors.

If people in private policies have to pay higher premiums, their quality of life will decrease as they spend money on insurance instead of other things and they’ll eventually have to switch to the public option.

The public option will then be overwhelmed and the govt will have to pump more money into it. The gov will also have to either raise taxes, raise premiums, and/or take over hospitals. All of this cause americans to have to pay more to healthcare and have less money.

Less money means lower quality of life, it also means people aren’t buying as much from stores and industries, hurting the economy. If the economy is hurt, then wages will fall and unemployment will increase. This means quality of life will decrease even more not to mention that the govt will have a harder time getting the money to run the public option as people have less income to tax and aren’t able to afford copays and premiums.

So this will cause a short term increase in the quality of life for a minority of the population followed by a long term fiscal drop in quality of life for everyone and a blow to the economy.

Mark

November 9th, 2009
11:48 pm

A. Kinnebrew: Is your comment supposed to be a satire? ” And the US provides the best health service in the world thanks to our market economy.” That is a bad joke. Best health service producing some of the worst results among all developed contries? I am sure the people who cannot afford the rates of the insurance companies, the thousands of people ill and dying because of lack of care are not amused by this nonsense.

“The fact is that the congress is supposed to consider the constitutionality of a law before passing it.” And you have evidence that the Congress does not? Because you and other armchair legal experts have an opinion about it?

Also, isn’t it wonderful that we have clairvoyants like you among us? Who know exactly what will happen?

The simple, fundamental facts are that there is a certain number of people who get sick or injured, that they should be treated, and that this would cost certain amount of money. The insurance companies do not treat anybody; they just skim a large portion of money people pay. Either we all pay own own medical expenses, and when we cannot, we are let to die. Or we have a basic universal insurance, to which everybody contributes, without a middleman of the private insurance companies, which then can be supplemented either by individual payments for services, or by private insurance.

The sad fact is that our country, which has lagged behind the civilized world in most aspects of social progress – slavery, child labor, women’s right to vote – probably will continue to lag behind in health care because of the loud rants of selfish and ignorant people.

Government Option Done Deal

November 10th, 2009
12:26 am

The only ignorance I see is a former US Attorney who has not cited any case law to support his contentions. The vast majority of constitutional law scholars have weighed in from both sides of the aisle that the extremist fringe position that Barr is proposing would never prevail in federal appellate court. That won’t stop ignorant hick states like Georgia from wasting millions in appeals, the same way Purdue did with the water fiasco, and Handel did trying to foreclose voting rights.

It’s comical for bar to bawl that no one is offering any constitutional citation for Congress’ ability to make laws.

PatHenry

November 10th, 2009
1:57 am

The first comment – Mark – brings at least a start of an effective argument. There is not a “need” to explicitly justify the constitutionality of a bill, but his logic falls apart thereafter.

There are numerous quotes of founders, including one by Madison, regarding the spirit of the “general welfare” clause indicating that not only is the clause NOT designed to allow gross redistribution or as a catch-all, but Madison warns of government abuse:

“To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.”

The Constitution LIMITS the power of government, and if we follow both letter and spirit, rather than violating the 9th amendment as Mark suggests, we must say that the right to “not be forced to buy something, nor pay for something for others lest we face prosectution and imprisonment”, is as valid as any other “implied” right.

For my own part, I submit that “being that our fore-fathers threw tea into the harbor due to the forced purchase of that good”, the founders never would codify the ability to do that very thing with any good, including health care. Hence, the bill violates spirit and letter of the federal supreme law and aught not be tolerated.

PatHenry

November 10th, 2009
2:20 am

My girlfriend brought up a good point – the constitution “provides” for the common defense, but only “promotes” the general welfare.

And I do disagree with “Interstate highway system” (should be inter-states’ highway at state level), federal disaster relief (should be charities first, then states, and if that aint good enough, we have bigger societal problems), and other things that help me (???? what? The federal government cannot give $1 to anyone without either taking it from me (or interest on such takings) or printing money, which means that the first $1 of “help” required TAKING from another. Perhaps YOU are comfortable with the government making the decision of who/where they take from, but you cannot speak for me. If you like government deciding these things today, what about tomorrow?? What if I get to make the decision and don’t like you? What if it’s vice-versa?? And what if you change your mind – do you think they’ll give up that power as easily as you did?

PatHenry

November 10th, 2009
2:34 am

Mark – “No middle man”???

Wouldn’t the government be a middleman?? If you don’t like middlemen, you could just pay directly.

My answer to my own question: The government is a middleman, and is a bad deal because as bad as any insurance company is (and I’m not defending insurance co.’s) the government is worse because they have the additional power of “putting a gun at your head” and lack effective limitations on power. I cannot “go to a competitor” if the gov’t doesn’t “allow” it. In other words, we should not let the referee play the game.

Hard Right Hook

November 10th, 2009
5:20 am

What Me Worry

November 9th, 2009
8:46 pm

So the FBI “fabricated” the Ft. Dix plot. And you’ll tell us next that the aircraft didn’t actually hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Are you an American?

Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?

Or are you just off your meds?

Mark

November 10th, 2009
8:45 am

PatHenry: Government as a middle man at least does not have the enormous overhead of the private insurance comnpanies – several times that of Medicare. We have seen how the private companies have played the game, denying payment for treatments. Where do you see, in reality rather than words, that free market advantage? Moreover, most people forget the enormous costs related to the need of many doctors to keep track of hundreds of different insurance plans, which would only increase if everbody could choose plans from all over the country. Think about nightmare!
Funny thing, how just about all senior people like Medicare (including those warning “do not let government’s hands on my Medicare”), a government program, and hardly any Republican in the Congress would want to abolish it, but it would be the end of civilization if all people were covered that way..

Mark

November 10th, 2009
9:15 am

One sure way to recognize people who have a problem with thinking is when you hear somebody react to the word “democracy” with claims that the US is not a democracy, because it is a republic.

Jason Koley

November 10th, 2009
9:24 am

There’s a lot of anger, clearly, in these posts.

Really, the only posts that are coherent have been written by 2 or 3 people, who seem to have read the bill and have opinions on it. I have not read the 2000+ pages and therefore if you choose to ignore what I have to write, have at it…that is your right.

1. Our country has over 40 million uninsured.
2. Far from having the best system of health care in the world, we suffer from high insurance premiums, inflated costs, and a pharmaceutical industry that reaps record profits.
3. Our system of politics (and marketing/lobbying) rewards scare tactics and misinformation.
4. We consider ourselves a superpower, as does the rest of the world.

It seems to me that this health care bill, while not perfect, tries to address the problems of 1 and 2 above, and is thwarted by 3. If this really were the end of the republic, as some seem to imply, I am not sure that many medical associations would support it, as they have.

For me, I want to live in a society that takes care of its people. As such, I am proud that we are making the effort. It may be flawed, but I have faith in America as a self-correcting republic. To address the problems of 1 and 2 is to demonstrate that we are indeed the 4th: a superpower. While I haven’t agreed with all of Mark’s posts, he is correct in that if the bill is unconstitutional, it will eventually be self-corrected by the very institution that makes this country different from many others: an independent judiciary.

Captain makes some fine points. That is his opinion. I have mine. Can we not debate in a civilized fashion and come to a good and just decision? All this article and comment has made me want to do is read the legislation in its entirety. I suggest others do the same, and not spout whatever argument they heard from their favorite talk show host or other political pundit.

Thanks for reading.

Mark

November 10th, 2009
10:02 am

Jason Koley: While I agree with most that you have written, I respectfully suggest that “reading the legislation in its entirety” is, at least for now, a waste of time. There is not one bill; there is the HR bill, there will be (hopefully) a Senate bill, and eventually (again perhaps) the final bill. Moreover, as I heard Paul Krugman say and I agree, in spite of the saying that the devil is in details, I believe the important provisions (in the HR bill) are pretty clear and rather simple. Reading the bill in the entirety one can get easily distracted by some detail (a favorite weapon of the detractors), which may not even survive the furher negotations anyway, or can be changed later. The real debate for the populace is about the principles and philosophy of the health care system.

Ayn Rand Was Right

November 10th, 2009
10:11 am

Mark – apologies if this has already been addressed, but you suggest that it is not prohibited for a person to purchase care not approved by the government. I beg to differ as it is illegal currently for any doctor to accept payment for services from someone currently receiving Medicaid. This includes a Medicaid provider on services that were not approved by Medicaid or a non-Medicaid provider.

Mark

November 10th, 2009
10:21 am

Ayn Rand Was Right: Medicaid is a special case, because by nature it is a program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. A much bettere example is Medicare, and many people have Medicare as primary insurance and a private insurance as secondary.

Turd Ferguson

November 10th, 2009
10:44 am

Pelosi is a rogue horse apple.

Turd Ferguson

November 10th, 2009
10:45 am

PS…there are somethings such as, OboboCare, global warming/cooling or whatever is the politically expedient term today, the lazy, the bums, etc that are more important than the Constitution.

Just ask Obobo, Peloshyt, Reid, Frank etc…

Hard Right Hook

November 10th, 2009
1:23 pm

“While I haven’t agreed with all of Mark’s posts, he is correct in that if the bill is unconstitutional, it will eventually be self-corrected by the very institution that makes this country different from many others: an independent judiciary.”

The Congress writes legislation, the Executive branch signs the legislation into law, and the Judiciary reviews and rules on disputes/cases. It is NOT the judiciary’s job to re-write bad legislation.

chuck

November 10th, 2009
1:36 pm

I read most of the posts today and I have to say Mark, you are one funny misinformed dude. I had Iced Tea come out of my nose when I read your post that said you’ve been pointing out “bad arguments”. DUDE, you’ve been MAKING BAD ARGUMENTS.

First, you don’t have to be a “Constitutional Scholar” to read and understand the Constitution. I am actually TEACHING a unit on the Constitution right now and my 8th graders are having very little trouble understanding and APPLYING Constitutional Principles. The left has no desire to abide by Constitutional restraints. They beleive that that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that THEY know what is best for us.

My biggest lament about this country is that we have LOST the ESSENCE of America. We are a country built on rugged individualism NOT this collectivist garbage being spewed by the left. Part of the problem is with knuckleheads like you think that government is the solution to our problems. NO!!!! We have and are the solutions to our problems.

My second biggest lament is the loss of all sense of the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Your off-handed dismissal of the 10th Amendment as it relates to the healthcare bill shows both your political and intellectual immaturity. The Federal government is NOT ALLOWED to just do whatever it wants to do. IT IS BOUND by the Constitution and all branches have an OBLIGATION to follow the Constitution in carrying out their duties.

In short, we really have to lay aside politics and begin electing people who will rein in this massive, fraud-riddled federal government.

Hard Right Hook

November 10th, 2009
1:56 pm

You have my vote, chuck.

Chris Broe

November 10th, 2009
3:03 pm

The feds should ban texting while driving, but the problem is, “how do you prove it in a constitutional manner?”

How does the arresting officer know that the driver wasn’t just playing Donkey Kong on his Iphone, and not texting? See the constitutional ignorance in this problem?

The driver would have to be texting a taunting message directly into a patrol cop’s blackberry while both are driving around in the same vicinity or no arrest would be constitutionally possible. What are the odds of that ever happening? Then, even more unlikely, the text would have to read exactly like this for any arrest to be warranted: “Hey, copper, I heard there’s a new donut shop open near Maple and Fifth Street, man. bwa. give the ape a banana. off the pigs. woohoo! top of the world, ma!”

I mean, the cop would have to be like right next to the guy, receive the message, pull him over, and tazer him, and then take him downtown in some sort of constitutionally-ignorant stupor, man, wouldn’t he?

I just cant see that ever happening. but I’d vote for the legislation anyway. This is america, after all, and if you cant make fun of the cops, get tazed, and thrown into prison then what good is ignorance itself?

This text was Paid for by Texters for a More Constitutionally Ignorant America.

Linda

November 10th, 2009
3:11 pm

The health care insurance reform bill has nothing to do with health, care, insurance nor reform.

When will all Americans wake up & see that O HAS & IS doing exactly what he said he would do a year ago? He said, “We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”