Congressman Phil Hare, D-Ill: I Don’t Worry About the Constitution

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,174
18,809
146
Rather scary attitude if you ask me. The people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution publicly claiming they don't care about it???

Congressman: 'I Don’t Worry About the Constitution' on Health Care Overhaul

FOXNews.com

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

"You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?" Sharp shouted back.

"I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare countered.

When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, "Doesn't matter to me. Either one."

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

"But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country," Hare said.

Sharp said the law won't do that.

The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the "maldistribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," Baucus said after the Senate passed a "fix it" bill to make changes to the health care law.

"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America," he said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,711
6,266
126
haha, Fox Fail. Seriously, does anyone on Fox or Views Fox ever think anymore?
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
What are you crying about, Sandorski?

This thread is about a congressman, that doesn't know the constitution.

-John
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,711
6,266
126
What are you crying about, Sandorski?

This thread is about a congressman, that doesn't know the constitution.

-John

Incorrect. This thread is about Fox and its' Viewers missing the point that he dismisses the Constitutionality Argument against the HC Reform Bill. He is not dismissing the Validity or Importance of the Constitution, at all.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,174
18,809
146
Incorrect. This thread is about Fox and its' Viewers missing the point that he dismisses the Constitutionality Argument against the HC Reform Bill. He is not dismissing the Validity or Importance of the Constitution, at all.

Fail
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Incorrect. This thread is about Fox and its' Viewers missing the point that he dismisses the Constitutionality Argument against the HC Reform Bill. He is not dismissing the Validity or Importance of the Constitution, at all.
I see what you are saying... same arguement that everone else is saying, the States attack on the constitutionality of Obama's Health Care Bill, will not succeed.

-John
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I see what you are saying... same arguement that everone else is saying, the States attack on the constitutionality of Obama's Health Care Bill, will not succeed.

-John

It won't succeed because it can't succeed, since it has no legal merit under existing SCOTUS precedent. Everyone who has seriously studied the issue knows this. Even the proponents of the lawsuits know it; these suits are publicity stunts to energize far right voters for November. Hare knows it too and it's why he could care less about these challenges.

- wolf
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Right. But, It's not just far right voters that are angry, or dismayed at the new health care law.

-John
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Right. But, It's not just far right voters that are angry, or dismayed at the new health care law.

-John

Ok, then the lawsuits are publicity stunts to energize whoever happens to oppose the bill to go out and vote. Honestly though, they play best to the far right, since more moderate bill opponents well understand that the lawsuits are publicity stunts and thus are unlikely to be moved by them.

- wolf
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Oh? Is that so?

The full quote is: "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

To me, it seems that he thinks that it is constitutional and thus he's not worrying about it for this.

However, a Congressman not knowing about the Constitution or not caring about it shouldn't be shocking. It's not his duty. That is delegated to the Supreme Court.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I think what the congressman meant was that he didn't think the Constitution would be an issue, which is a valid interpretation. It's where he confuses the Constituion with the Declaration of Independence that scares me. I wouldn't have made that mistake in 6th grade.

God some politicians are stupid. First Guam tipping over and now this.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Incorrect. This thread is about Fox and its' Viewers missing the point that he dismisses the Constitutionality Argument against the HC Reform Bill. He is not dismissing the Validity or Importance of the Constitution, at all.

Bullshit, reread his own words and take off your lib colored glasses.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,395
277
136
He got the Declaration and the Constitution all mixed up.... LMAO. He can not even state where in the Constitution it gives him the ability to do so.

This is just a sad state of affairs. :(
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Bullshit, reread his own words and take off your lib colored glasses.

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this."


I said the same thing yesterday when I was putting my new grill together. I don't know why my brother even brought it up. Side burner FTW
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,039
46,707
136
Another context-be-damned political hitjob by Faux Noise and it's tea-bagging base...wow, call me shocked.

OP title is a cherry picked quote, maybe you guys should put the circlejerk on hold and get that fixed, otherwise you're just celebrating another FauxFail.


Let me know when this Congressman advocates and supports warrantless wiretapping, then I'll agree he doesn't worry about the Constitution.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,039
46,707
136
I don't just ignore the law when it suits me.

Seems you have some business to take up with Repubs concerning Social Security and Medicare D. Or, like Faux, does your indignation vanish with the presence of an (R) after a name?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,039
46,707
136
Your first fault was implying that I support the Republicans.

Except, I didn't. What I implied is that you are another conservative "fair weather" critic (they've been coming out of the woodwork since Nov. 08).

But ok, I'll bite: link me to something that proves you criticize by principle, and not just by party. So far your post history on this forum comes across as extremely partisan. Your idiotic sig doesn't help that perception either.
 

Tristicus

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2008
8,107
5
61
www.wallpapereuphoria.com
Except, I didn't. What I implied is that you are another conservative "fair weather" critic (they've been coming out of the woodwork since Nov. 08).

But ok, I'll bite: link me to something that proves you criticize by principle, and not just by party. So far your post history on this forum comes across as extremely partisan. Your idiotic sig doesn't help that perception either.

Except, you did. What you implied was that since I am against what he is for, that I am of the opposite party.

I criticize anything that opposes what I feel is right. Principle is relative. So far your post history comes across as nothing but proof of my sig.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,039
46,707
136
Except, you did. What you implied was that since I am against what he is for, that I am of the opposite party.

I criticize anything that opposes what I feel is right. Principle is relative. So far your post history comes across as nothing but proof of my sig.

Is that all you got? Seriously?