Posted on 11/12/2009 4:43:46 AM PST by markomalley
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that because he is not a constitutional scholar he was “not going to be able to answer that question” of where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.
“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Nelson.
“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
The senator then turned away to answer another reporter’s question.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The USSR had a great constitution too, on paper.
Now that we’re becoming the USSA, ours will only be a paper constitution as well.
ML/NJ
You don’t suppose that we should make it mandatory that they read the entire Constitution before they take an oath to uphold it?
Akaka (HI) is saying the same thing.
This is a ruse!
See: Campaign Finance Reform.
THEN STEP DOWN AND ALLOW AN ADULT TO LEAD!!!!
“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
The follow-up questions should be “Do you intend to find out before you vote on it? If not, should the people of your state impeach you or is resignation a preferred exit?”
Exactly. Ignorance of the Constitution is no excuse.
I'd also ask "So do you mean that you don't care enough about the Constitutionality of this legislation to follow up and find out whether it is Constitutional or not? Isn't that a dereliction of duty to your constituents? Can't you consult a Constitutional attorney to find out if what you are doing is even legal?"
Ben Nelson from Nebraska will vote FOR the health care bill. He always does this “dog and pony” show and then votes the democrat status quo. He has a law degree, and worked in the insurance industry before being elected governor in 1990. He will vote to destroy one of the key industries in the state he represents. I do not understand why so many of his constituents consider him a moderate, as he is not.
He just admitted he does’nt know what he’s doing...he obviously can’t handle his job.
should be grounds for immediate removal from office to be followed up with criminal conspiracy charges for Deprivation of Rights, lets not forget Civil Asset Forfeiture. This needs to be done at the State Level. And it can be done, the first State to start playing hardball when it comes to The Rule of Law and the Constitution, will start the process of returning us to a Representative Republic.
I've never agreed more with anything posted on Free Republic.
Great post.
These people all took an oath to defend the constitution, now they admit that they don’t even know what it says?? or better yet they don’t care what it says, Time for States to recall their representatives, and Hold Trials on Conspiracy for Deprivation of Rights.
Yes, but what congresscrooks mean by "The Constitution" is something called "Constitutional Law," which is how law professors (like BO) think it should be interpreted (which may include Sharia Law), and as you can see, is much more than the original 10 pages:
It doesn't matter what it "looks like" if it goes into conference, controlled by Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman Schultz, Emanuel, etc.
My email to the distinguished gentleman:
I find your ignorance of the Constitution astounding. This is the document that you took an oath to uphold but it appears that you have not even taken the time to read it.
This is not a bill (which I understand you no longer need to read), it is the rule book for our nation. It takes a couple of hours to read, it is written in plain English and is pretty clear that if it is not spelled out, the federal government should stay out.
I am amazed by the sheer number of items in your ‘Topic’ dropdown that are not covered by the Constitution. You may wish to pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments when you come up with the couple of hours required to read the document.
Read it and answer a few questions, starting with,
what is Congress allowed to do under this document?
This is analogous to the dichotomy of a Christian/Godly worldview vs the humanist worldview, and actually has the same origin.
You either have a FIXED point of reference for right and wrong, lawful and unlawful,
or the “contemporary, evolved definition” prevails.
I pray to God he is serious.....Praying HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTTT!
Better have someone do some research for you, Ben. We don’t have to vote your happy a$$ back into office, you know...
I am sure he is. Nelson always couchs his words and never has a stand until he has realy examined an issue(i.e. did a poll). He's a consumate politician. In response to an email I had sent him regarding the helth care fiasco, he replied after 3 weeks witha generic "wait and see" response.
A few days ago I was priveledged to be on the receiving end of a phone poll of his asking voters if they woul dbe more likely or less likely to vote for him next time if he stood against the health care bill.
Now he comes out and says he against it.
If you read the whole article I think the most important part is one of the last lines.
Nelson took aim at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean and what he called "the Deaniacs," who don't like his stand against the public option.
"They are special interests and they have their own agenda," Nelson said. "And my agenda, I think, is the same as the people in Nebraska, their agenda, and I am going to do what I think is right."
In other words, he did his poll and so he is against it. Even though all our reps have been pretty well inundated with emails and etc against the health care takeover, he had to do his poll to figure it out. At least he came out on the correct side.
Now we just have to see how he actually votes.
Exactly!
Don't let a little thing like the Constitution (which you swore to uphold) get in your way of making laws.
On this issue I dont care if he governs by the polls (if the polls say dont do it). Just defeat the damn thing. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good point. I would not be surprised to find a 30 volume "Humanist Bible Interpretations" set analogous to "Constitutional Law."
It wasn’t 30 volumes, but I found just such a work a while back - “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism”.
Basically, any scripture that disagrees with the secular humanist worldview should be viewed as allegory.
If we want to save our Constitution we are going to have to fight for it!
“I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, except I have no clue what it says and have no interest in finding out.”
Still, it might be called "verbal inflation." I think both the original Bible and Constitution were inspired works. The words written afterwards are pale, or even corrupt, in comparison.
Just sent the following to my Congressman (Steve Israel - D) and both Senators (Schumer and Gillebrand)
Congressman (Senator), Since you did vote for the health care bill in congress I had a question for you. I’m sure many of your other constituents would have the same questions so I’d respectfully recommend posting the answer on your website.
From where do you derive the power to mandate what’s mandated in the recently passed Affordable Health Care for America Act?
Can you please post the portion of the Constitution that gives the Congress power to mandate people purchase health insurance on pain of fine or jail?
I am sure there must be something, somewhere that gives the Federal Government this power, is there not?
A Constitutional ammendment?
The settled case law of a Supreme Court case perhaps?
If not, perhaps you could post an explanation of why you felt it was acceptable to vote for this bill when you were not given these powers.
I look forward to your response.
Warmest regards
Couldn’t say “I look forward to you ignoring me”....gotta play at being respectful even if the tone is snide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.