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.
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.