Phil Hare doesn't care

Rep. Hare says "I don

qconline.com

Congressman Phil Hare left a campaign stop in Quincy amidst a contentious exchange with attendees over the health care reform bill.

A visual recording of the exchange can be viewed on YouTube. Rep. Hare is seated, arguing with several people who cannot be seen in the recording about the bill.

He is using an example of someone having to take their child to the hospital while not having insurance and being stuck with a hefty medical bill when someone began to ask "Where in the Constitution..."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.youtube.com

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Dragonsbreaths]

I did not see this elsewhere so if it is posted please close this one.

Another Congressman admits they do not obey the oath they swore to uphold the US Constitution.

Exactly when does this become treason or at least a reason to have them brought up on charges?

Or for that matter what if this had been said by a republican instead of a democrat?

qconline.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Let the Dems keep this line of meeting the people and they will surely be toast in Nov.

Just more evidence that they are going to continue to ram things.

See, when people like this, like my dad (70s) etc get upset, watch the heck out. The Dems either just don't get what the people are upset.

Or worse yet, they do and they are going balls to the wall to subvert any resistance or mass voter retaliation.

Notice you don't see Reid or Pelosi around. They hiding deep.

Did you see how he got all cotton mouthed after they started calling him out on his comment about the constitution. He knew he f'd up by telling them the truth about how he feels. I'm glad the one guy stuck to his guns and didnt back down one inch from calling him a liar. Good for him.

Typical cockroach. Just scurry away when the light is shone on you. The questions of "why" and "where" seem to be pretty good repellent to them.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

If you still have the option to edit this thread, I'd recommend changing the title to include the fact that Phil Hare is a Congressman (albeit a despicable one), from Illinois. Also, include that he doesn't care about the "Constitution".

This video is something everyone needs to see. S & F from me, to encourage more exposure.

I guess he felt the need to respond. He seems to looking down at his notes quite a bit. I wonder who typed them up for him? Hmmm... Youd think that something coming from the heart would just roll off his tongue. Curious that he uses a phrase that the president used in an interview just today with Harry Smith.

" We can disagree without being disagreeable."



What a bunch of robots. Reminds me of what a robot said in a Futurama episode.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe.








[edit on 2-4-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


Thanks for posting that vid. I just thrills my soul to see them squirm, like this!

Congratulations on finding a congressman that was not well versed with constitutional law.

that said...Finding a Congressman that cannot answer the question of where in the constitution is the authority to regulate healthcare does not equal "HCR is unconstituional".

Everyone here is bright enough to understand this.

Let's assume for just moment that anyone was looking for a real answer...

The Commerce Clause in the constitution grants Congress the ability "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states."

The Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. as long as those activities substantially affect interstate commerce and Health Insurance does just that.

In addition to the Commerce Clause, HCR is supported by the "neccessary and proper clause" Article 1 "Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

There was a near identical debate with the passgae of the Civil Rights bill and justices both conservative and liberal have always agreed on this premise.

Does the government have the right to take steps to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Anyone ever question the constitutionality of requiring us to pay for police or fire protection regardless of our individual needs for the same? How are we mandated to pay for those things? Through taxes.

Is there enough contrary evidence to make a case for unconstitutionality? Of course...our legal system affords it and rightly so, but if the past hundred years of supreme court rullings and the general opinions of constitutional scholars has any bearing...the recent legislation is wholey constitutional...the rest of it is just politics.

Let the courts weigh in....as opposed to ideologues.

reply to post by Dragonsbreaths


you know what that video reminds me of?




Funny how the tides have turned, and those who used to be defending the government are now attacking it for the VERY SAME REASONS.

I have no respect for anyone who can change their morals & principals simply because Fox News tells them to.

Grass Roots movement? Yes, im sure there are SOME people in that movement that have felt this way the whole time,

But the overwhelming majority of people who this "movement" is comprised of are a bunch of spineless 'my team politics' members of the idiot masses.

Originally posted by maybereal11


The Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. as long as those activities substantially affect interstate commerce and Health Insurance does just that.

100% wrong. If my doctor and my health insurance company are both in my home state, the transactions do not affect commerce in other states.

In addition to the Commerce Clause, HCR is supported by the "neccessary and proper clause" Article 1 "

Error #2. While you may believe health insurance mandates are necessary and proper, they are not. No court has ever ruled that way, and you are merely stating opinion.

Anyone ever question the constitutionality of requiring us to pay for police or fire protection regardless of our individual needs for the same? How are we mandated to pay for those things?

Of course they dont, because local police and fire services are a STATE matter, not a federal one. You do know the difference dont you?

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Commerce Clause in the constitution grants Congress the ability "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states."

The Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. as long as those activities substantially affect interstate commerce and Health Insurance does just that.

Two points of contention 1)the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which, specifically, assigns the powers of regulating the insurance industry, to the States 2)How does the individual mandate come under the "Commerce Clause"? If not, from where is that power derived?

The "Commerce Clause" was never intended to be used as a catch-all, for the Federal Government to abuse, for the sole purpose of revenue generation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is being done, yet again. What should we expect, next? Since the air we breath, at times blows across state boundaries, should the Fed apply a tax, based on the number of our respirations?

In addition to the Commerce Clause, HCR is supported by the "neccessary and proper clause" Article 1 "Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

That is quite a stretch, friend. Again, the Constitution of the United States was intended to place constraints on the Federal Government and, to this day, should be respected in that purpose.

I know that you perceive the Constitution as a "living document", with which I disagree. However, are there any limits to the interpretations, beyond which you consider them to be bastardizations of the stated intent? If we are to accept the justifications, given for the implementation of the HCR bill, the 10th Amendment is to be considered nullified. Is there a point, at which even you will draw a line in the sand? For many, the passage of this bill, by those who failed to educate themselves on its merits and faults, is that point. Rep. Hare is just one of many, excellent examples of the lunacy, that is Washington, D.C. Another is Rep. John Boehner, with his "Armageddon" speech. Typically ridiculous.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by WTFover]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by Snarf




This is a very bad comparison. These people have more in common with the people in the anti-globalism riots than people in the tea party.



While I do think there is merit to the comment comment that people accepted a lot things that bush did and are now complaining Now that Obama is in office. I believe that there are those people. I do however think that it is a mislabeling of the tea party to say that they were OK with Bush and all he did and are now a bunch of hypocrites for being against Obama. They were just at unhappy with Bush then too. If anything they are more upset at the Republicans ( RINO ) than they are the Democrats. Nobody likes a spineless deal making weasel.

I thnk that they out of all the activist groups represent most accurately the the sentiment of your average Joe in the United States. Sure they were very animated at the capitol, they were pissed. Just as a majority of American are pissed.

It wouldn't matter if Phil Hare was a Democrat or Republican and the tea party accurately reflects that. I see no hypocrisy in their message.