Comments on: Constitutional Ignorance Reigns Supreme on Capitol Hill

By: Constitutional Ignorance Reigns Supreme on Capitol Hill | the Barr … « halloweencutouts

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:51 +0000

[...] Social Security should also be viewed as a commodity; If I do not want to have my wages garnished now for the purpose of funding a future retirement I might not live long enough to see, I should have the freedom to keep 100% of my wages and … But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on CSPAN so that people can see who is making the arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance …Continue Reading [...]

By: Jackie’s off « liberty · equality · eternity

Jackie’s off « liberty · equality · eternity — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:31:06 +0000

[...] Bob Barr claims there’s this Constitution. Has anyone ever seen it? If it exists, Congress has read it as carefully as the trillion-dollar bills it passes. [...]

By: Thomas Cambridge

Thomas Cambridge — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:06:18 +0000

Mark,

Barr is addressing the issues of judicial activism and Congress’ constant overstepping of its “authority”. “where in the Constitution…” is meant to question someone’s claim of authority. Questioning is a GOOD thing. You should also educate yourself on the real meaning of the general welfare clause. Without an accurate historical perspective you merely sound like an ignoramus.

By: About health bill, constitution, congress, government, care reform, night, health care bill, reform bill, insurance - Find me About

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:39:22 +0000

[...] 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 …Read Original Story: Constitutional Ignorance Reigns Supreme on Capitol Hill – Atlanta Journal… [...]

By: Bill Walker

Bill Walker — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:33:38 +0000

While he is correct that health care by the government is unconstitutional, before Mr. Barr starts criticizing others for being unconstitutional, the former congressman should get his own public record in order. Mr. Barr was one of three individuals mentioned in a Missouri investigation recently regarding militia groups opposed to obeying the Constitution. Mr. Barr has stated he opposes obeying Article V of the United States Constitution and holding, as required by that article, a convention to propose amendments, or an Article V Convention, when the states have applied for such a convention. The public record is clear. The Constitution mandates a convention call if 34 states submit 34 applications for a convention call. The public record shows all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention call. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.

That public record also shows that while Mr. Barr was a member of Congress, sufficient applications existed to cause a convention call. Where was Mr. Barr then? Obviously joining with his fellow members of Congress to disobey the Constitution. Mr. Barr is a constitutional hypocrite and he has no business criticizing others for doing exactly what he himself has done.

A convention will and can repair the damage done by Congress and the courts and the states have already submitted proposed amendments to do so. But so long as leaders such as Mr. Barr who really doesn’t support the Constitution are listened to, the Constitution will continued to be ignored.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:35 +0000

A common comment appearing here is about letting the Supreme Court review the constitutionality afterwards. I want to know where in the Constitution it says that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority on the Constitution? I’ve read it a few times and it appears to me that all three branches should be watching for constitutionality. The Supreme Court only gets called in after the first two mess it up. If someone does answer, please don’t bring up the “constitutional review precedent” set by Marshall. The Constitution also does not place precedence restrictions on the judiciary.

By: PatHenry

PatHenry — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:43:51 +0000

Ahh Linda, fantastically well said.

We can look at Liberal “successes” – Medicare – going broke, paying 80% of claims. Those doctors that like it, probably do because the insurance companies question them. That waste fraud and abuse, who is doing that? Oh yeah, doctors (among others)
VA care – dirty, run down and often hundreds of miles away. If it weren’t for those of us privately giving (we have a Walter Reid charity box where I work, and I’ve given to SCWDA – benefiting military dog handlers – see Vietnam for gov’t’s idea of living creatures (they euthanized and abandoned 1000’s of war dogs after declaring them “expendible equipment”, deaf to the pleas of the handlers to adopt them at their own expense)) you’d never use this as a shining example of government management.
SS – Going broke, despite the thousands I’ve already put in, why do I keep hearing how I might never get any of my own money back???
Military – Constitutionally authorized, yet can’t account for millions in dollars, can’t get 2000 dollar fire surpression for 16000 Humvee gas tanks (2000 bucks, plus 2 hours labor times 16000, still less than AIG’s bailout) and thousand dollar hammers???
War on Poverty – How many people have been lifted out of poverty?? Statistically, 0%.

“As long as we have the power to tax, we can always take away from the people whatever we need to bail them out of trouble.” Said before 1964, and it’s still true today.

I guess their intentions, that’s all that matters…

By: Linda

Linda — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:59:36 +0000

Mark @ 8:31. I’m sorry you can’t make sense of what I said. You said that people who cannot afford health insurance & medicine die because they can’t afford health insurance & medicine.
The fact is that people who can afford & have health insurance & medicine also die.
Life expectancy is not related to having health insurance as much as it’s related to life style.
I care a lot about people in this country. I want health insurance reformed so that more people have access to it. The House bill has nothing to do with health, care, insurance or reform. It will not save lives.

By: Linda

Linda — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:43:07 +0000

Mark @ 8:31, regarding tort reform. As long as we have new mothers suing OBGYNs for stretch marks, we have a problem. Your estimate of 1% is much lower than my research. Sounds like statistics from MSNBC. Defensive medicine costs up to $178 B per yr & the additional cost of malpractice insurance is another $29.4 B. Numerous states have tort limits, including GA, & they have worked. There are plenty of ways to do it, such as in the Reps health insurance plan, but Dems will never reform tort because the lawyers lobby gives the vast majority of their funds to Dems. I understand that the House health care bill vetos all states’ tort reform legislation. That doesn’t sit right with me.

As long as we have new mothers suing their OBGYNs for stretch marks, we have a problem with tort reform. The studies you mentioned

By: PatHenry

PatHenry — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:22:33 +0000

Mark: I said I hope you read this because I meant to tell you that I appreciate your fortitude. Most liberals or people arguing liberal positions get frustrated when their arguments don’t hold up and just call you a racist or cafe-hole and fold up like a lawn chair. It’s refreshing that you stay with it without deteriorating to the insane vulgarities and empty platitudes (I know we have those on our side too)…… I wanted to give you at least that credit as I feel it’s due (though Linda likely disagrees…. )