Idiot.

Umm, Senator Schumer the three branches of Government specified by the Constitution are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial not the Senate, House and President, you might want to review Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

It’s no wonder we’re in the mess we’re in when so many of our elected representatives don’t seem to have vaguest idea  what the Constitution actually says — or, for that matter, have any respect for the limits it places on the Government.

I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. Now, the basis for that would be, how does it affect other people. In other words… The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.

His answer is rather chilling, but it seems to reflect the broader attitude of many in Congress… Screw the Constitution we can do whatever we want and you rubes had better get used to it.

Every member of Congress swears an oath to defend the Constitution of United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic:

“I, [State your Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Frankly, I don’t see how Rep. Stark can bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when he so clearly has no respect for it or the limits it places on the powers of the Federal Government. Ronald Reagan said it best, The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

I should note that while the woman questioning Rep. Stark argues very effectively against health care reform on 13th Amendment grounds, as Ed Morrissey notes, Fifth Amendment protections against the confiscation of private property and the Article I, Section 8 mandate that Congress protect ownership ones “exclusive right to their Writings and Discoveries” for those in the sciences and arts also apply.

Update (Wednesday, August 4, 2010): Michelle Malkin has more on Pete Stark’s remarks at last weekend’s town hall… Rep. Stark apparently didn’t know what the Government’s E-Verify program is and mockingly told his constituents that denying jobs to illegal aliens could be “unconstitutional.”

Wow, Pete Stark is another great example of why we need Congressional Term limits. Never mind his convoluted views on the Constitution, he’s openly contemptuous of the people he was elected to represent. Rep. Stark seems to have forgotten that he is an elected representative who serves at the will of the people, it’s time for the people of California’s 13th congressional district to send him into retirement.

Related

• Judge lets Virginia healthcare challenge proceed – Reuters
• ObamaCare and the Constitution—An Update – Betsy McCaughey, The Wall Street Journal

Rep. LoBiondo, a Republican, confuses Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution with the 1st Amendment worse still when pressed he doesn’t seem to know what the 1st Amendment says:

Ouch… Every member of Congress swears an oath to defend the Constitution of United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I’m not how sure they can bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when so many of them, both Democrats and Republicans, seem to be completely clueless about what it says.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution deals with legislative powers:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The 1st Amendment deals with religion, speech, the Press, the right of assembly and the right of the people to petition the government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Members of Congress should know this stuff cold… The Constitution of the United States of America is not particularly long or complex document, in fact its eloquence is one of its greatest strengths.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now… The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Federalist Papers should be required reading for every high school student — and politician in America.

I should mention that the guy who schooled Rep. LoBiondo appears to be a 9/11 Truther not a Tea Party activist… It just goes to show even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Update (April 16, 2010): Steven Hayward at No Left Turns reports that, Christopher Weber, the guy questioning Rep. LoBiondo is in fact not 9/11 Truther:

Okay, so a few days ago I flagged this spectacular YouYube video of a citizen taking down Republican Congressman Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey for his obvious ignorance of the Constitution, along with the update from Michelle Malkin that the person in the video was supposedly a 9/11 Truther or somesuch nut.  Uncharacteristically for Michelle, who is a good journalist, she did not offer any links behind her claim that this guy is a nutjob, but I passed it along relying on her post.

Well, this person has a name: Christopher Weber, and he has his own YouTube account, hpprinter12345, where you can see all 16 of his videos, some of them very good.  Nothing about 9/11 Trutherism.  But this guy does know how to speak well and compellingly.  And he did me the kindness of calling me on the phone to ask, essentially, what the hell is going on?  I’m not that guy!

He’s right, he isn’t, and I owe him an apology as well as this correction.  Unfortunately, there is another Christopher Weber with a Youtube account, thepenrev, and this other Weber has more than 1,300 YouTube videos posted.  Looks like he posts several a day.  And it is THIS OTHER CHRISTOPHER WEBER who has the nutty 9/11 Truther videos and lots of other stuff.  Unquestionably what happened is that Michelle, or someone, saw these other videos–these two Webers look a little bit alike–put 2 and 2 together, and got 22.  And now the original Mr. Weber is being besmirched across the net.

H/T: Michelle Malkin.

Related

• GOP lawmaker ripped by Tea Party activist – The Hill
• Watch this guy quiz Congressman LoBiondo on the Constitution – Paul Mulshine, Newark Star Ledger

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill. However, there is no “good and welfare clause” in the U.S. Constitution.

During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

The what??? There is no “good and welfare” clause in the Constitution… the word “good” appears just once in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The word “welfare” appears twice once in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And again in Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

Neither instance gives Congress the authority to force private citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s a sad state affairs when our elected leaders… who have sworn to defend the Constitution either don’t know, or don’t care what it says. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the Debates of the Constitution should be required reading for every high school student — and politician in America.

Update: Be sure to follow the related links below for a couple great analysis’ of the situation… Kerry Picket at The Washington Times points out then President James Madison’s March 3, 1817 veto of a federal public works bill. Madison, one of the architects, of the Constitution explains the limitations of  the “to provide for common defense and general welfare” clause. And Allahpundit has a good synopsis of the legal issues at Hot Air.

Related

• Conyers fabricates constitutional law citing ‘good and welfare’ clause – Kerry Picket, Washington Times
• Conyers: O-Care is constitutional because of the “Good and Welfare Clause” – Allahpundit, Hot Air

President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to adopt and implement the president’s proposals. Consider one element known as the “individual mandate,” which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach. Read the rest…

Ok, so if individual mandates are unconstitutional what happens to universal coverage? In short it fails, not everyone wants to buy health insurance now, and that’s unlikely to change even with individual mandates. Living in a free society means being able to make choices that others many not agree with… Including choosing not to buy health insurance.

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

A finding that the voting rights bill runs afoul of the Constitution could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenge that probably would reach the Supreme Court if it is enacted. The bill, which would give the District a vote in the House for the first time, appeared to be on the verge of passing last month before stalling when pro-gun legislators tried to attach an amendment weakening city gun laws. Supporters say it could reach the House floor in May.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general’s office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.

Ed Morrissey asks “What part of “support and defend the Constitution” does Holder not understand?“… I’m wondering the same thing, the Constitution is quite plain on the matter. The Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion is not in any way out of line or rogue it’s the same position that the OLC has held since at least 1963.

Ed Whelan was more here.

Related

• Attorney General Holder is Subverting the Constitution – Kim Priestap, Wizbang

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Barack Obama’s view of the Constitution and the role of the courts should scare the living daylights out of every American who understands that the Constitution is the sole and most important safeguard of our rights and our liberties.

The framers intended the Constitution to be a limiting document, it is not a charter, it is the law of the land. Without it we are subjects, not citizens.

Steven Calabresi has much more detailed look at Obama’s views on redistribution and the Constitution in today’s Wall Street Journal.