Additional Pages

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Lincoln Caplan, Intentional Idiot

A strong H/T to Sipsey Street Irregulars for drawing my attention to this idiot who wrote an Op-ed for the New York Times. This is so obtuse as to be intentional idiocy, or outright lack of a quality education. Does the NYTimes just lift the rugs when they want some cockroach to write an Op-ed, or what?

Maybe I can help to clarify what seems to mystify this bozo about the Constitution. Here he writes:

John Boehner, the next House speaker, expresses the message of constitutional conservatism in calling for every bill to identify the part of the Constitution it rests on. Sarah Palin used the phrase to campaign for limited government. Tea Party members call themselves constitutional conservatives. It is the new mantle in which Republican politicians are wrapping themselves.

The challenge lies in understanding what, if anything, it actually means.

The phrase is used mainly in opposition: against health care reform; against the General Motors bailout; against President Obama’s policies.
Okay, one at a time. "John Boehner, the next House speaker, expresses the message of constitutional conservatism in callin gfor every bill to identify the part of the Constitution it rests on."

Well, Lincoln, that pretty much means that should one decide to raise taxes they should refer to 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..." A power, I might ad, that it would seem only logical to conclude rests with only funding those other powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. In simpler words for Lincoln, if it isn't in Article 1, Section 8, the government doesn't have the right to raise taxes to pay for it.

After the other snarky remarks, you say this: "The phrase is used mainly in opposition: against health care reform."

Yes, indeed, perhaps, if you could show me in Article 1, Section 8 where it says: "To purchase and provide for the citizens of the United States of America, health care and other necessary and vital services which might further their health and welfare throughout their lives," I would be more willing to listen to your snarky little tribute to "what on earth does constitutional conservatism mean?"

Show me, please, where it says in Article 1, Section 8, that the United States government has any role whatsoever in bailing out any private company for any reason.

You can't, but I can show you where it says, in Article 1, Section 9: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

I don't know about you, but there is a lot of money unaccounted for lately, don't ya think?

Now, I don't really blame you for taking Obama's side, I just wish you didn't have to play stupid to do it.

Graciously linked at Refreshing The Tree Of Liberty.

Cross-posted at WASHINGTON REBEL.

1 comment: