Asked About Where the Constitution Forces Americans to Buy Health Insurance… Speaker Pelosi Responds: "Are You Serious?" (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, October 23, 2009, 5:25 AM
How dare you ask Speaker Pelosi if her plan to nationalize health care is constitutional!
Asked by a reporter where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance the outraged Speaker responded, “Are you serious?”
CNSNews reported:
CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
Or, in other words, the Pelosi-Obama regime can force you to buy burnt monkey droppings if they want to.
They are your leaders. Don’t question their authority. They know what’s best for you.
Previously:
Bombshell!… Bill O’Reilly Announces Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Video)
UPDATE: Pelosi blasts Cheney on Afghanistan.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Rough Night… Obama Loses 36 Arkansas Counties to Unknown Democrat – Loses 67 Kentucky Counties to “Uncommitted”
Published May 23, 2012 at 4:57 am - 64 Comments
olm commented:
Pelosi: Constitution? We threw that out long ago.
S. Wolf commented:
Only if people are “goods” as in slaves would Interstate Commerce apply to forcing the purchase of health insurance, and even slaves would not be required to buy insurance since by definition slaves don’t possess money to buy anything.
Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper) commented:
Pelosi. Asshat.
Sasja commented:
I can just picture what went on in Pelosi’s office.
Quick, everyone. Look in that damnable document called the Constitution and find where we can say we have the power to force people to buy health insurance. Madam Speaker, it’s not there. Well, find something, you idiots. You mean we have to read the whole thing? Wait, let’s claim the power using interstate commerce. Close enough.
Joan of Argghh! commented:
By that weak logic, we can all be forced to buy a Sham-wow.
BackwardsBoy commented:
Never mind that the majority of Americans don’t want this bill in its current form, damn the people, full speed ahead.
This woman is a clear and present danger to our freedom and needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible.
SeniorD commented:
The image of the House Madam channeling Robert DeNiro’s ‘Taxi Driver’ “You talkin’ to me? You TALKING to ME?”
IOpian commented:
If, as it currently is, that buying insurance is limited to intrastate plans then how is this ‘inter-state’ commerce?
Opus #6 commented:
She seriously tramples the constitution every day. She can’t believe anybody thinks the words are still legible anymore.
Dick Nixon commented:
Doesn’t Homeland Security classify people who use this “Constitution” in their arguments as extremists? The reporter is now on the list for the coming gulags.
KR commented:
Obama College Thesis: ‘Constitution is Inherently Flawed’
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-college-thesis-constitution-is.html
myna commented:
Pelosi will lose the election. It probably good to ask her questions just to remind SF that they elected uneloquent and uninformed..errr rather moron as a representative.
Betty commented:
Nancy Pelosi is a blithering idiot. If the people of California have any sense at all – and we have NO reason to believe they DO – she will be kicked out on her dried up old keester come next election cycle.
Onlybeef42 commented:
Unfortunately the SCOTUS has been consistently (as part of the New Deal) interpreted the commerce clause very very broadly. Though beyond the clause’s initial intention, it would take a huge reversal of deep rooted precedent for the court to strike down a law like this under the commerce clause.
Bob Belvedere commented:
Quoted from and linked to at:
A BOTOX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!
ghHorse commented:
HeHeHe … they think they do. The old commerce clause ruse.
I think we should use the Constitution in the first questions and first defense against these congressional clunkers.
So this means the government can build shacks and force you to buy one to live in. The government can say that gruel will be the only food in America, and you will be forced to buy government gruel to save the planet. Well at least it’s not Soylent Green.
Going to be a big shock coming.
weewilly commented:
interstate commerce requires that everyone donate to the DNC, IT’S IN THE CONSTITOOTION!!
Darrell Phipps commented:
I know why she responded “Are you serious?!” She was responding to the idea that someone in the media would actually be giving her a question like that, which would put her on the spot and look bad! (lol)
Col.Smeag commented:
Oh good I was fresh out of burnt Monkey droppings …do they have those in fresh sent?
Chisum commented:
This one is a KEEPER!
Inherited or created?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/graph_of_the_day_for_october_2_4.html#
KR commented:
Being a Representative, only Pelosi’s SF district can vote her out. It will be interesting to see if they do actually kick her to the curb. I have my doubts, but if it did happen, California may be turning a corner.
Tim commented:
What is going on with ‘iowntheworld’ – site say’s ‘disabled’
C-CS commented:
Nancy P is a product of our eduction system…
She’s been DUMBED down and has never read the Constitution…nor has it ever been read to her—she wouldn’t want that anyway…like I say – she dumb-ed..
BurmaShave commented:
Hey, wait a minute. The Democrats have been for ages telling us to “Question Authority.”
Oh, now I get it: we are NOT supposed to question the DEMOCRATS’ authority.
TeresaE commented:
Nancy is one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Why doesn’t anyone else wonder why the DNC is so blatantly ignoring the MAJORITY?
I think I know, and it doesn’t bode well for the America of our youth.
Amnesty, shoved through over the Christmas break and then same-day voter registration and Forced Unionism will guarantee re-election for all these thieves.
Bread and circuses friends, they are buying bread and circuses for the non-contributing masses.
Once the majority no longer work, or contribute, wonder whom is going to be left to pay for them?
Freddy commented:
The commerce clause deals with commerce. A person sitting quietly is not performing any sort of ‘commerce’. Pelosi is just making this up. All she wants is to ram thru a health care bill. If the mandate part is illegal, they will simply create new taxes for everyone later on.
Remember, they all want single payer universal government control!
Meantime, as for Pelosi being re-elected, you need to understand her voters. The typical Pelosi voter is a renter in a city they cannot afford to buy a house in. They tend to be young idealistic people that think it is for the ‘greater good’ to have a very large welfare state. They also dream of how she is going to make it possible for them to buy a house, but it just never happens. Her voting base does turn over quite a bit as the delusions fade and people simply move on.
Joanne commented:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/simandles-4-strikes-against-the-u-s-constitution/
Read this article right to the end – it will take a few minutes. It is a must read, especially this part -
“2. Lack of Congressional action as required in the procedures to determine the eligibility of Obama. The man in his own admission against interest on his own political websites and in his writings had admitted his father was an alien governed by the laws of another country and that Obama himself was also governed by those laws. It was apparent to all in Congress including then-Senator Obama that he was not eligible under the Constitution since Obama himself not only sponsored but voted for SR511 regarding McCain’s NBC status which required 2 citizen parents and was supported in that regard by the “eminent” (gag) Tribe/Olson political-legal team. In spite of doing this with regard to McCain, there was no effort to do so WRT Obama who shortly thereafter claimed in a written, signed and notarized Oath recorded in Arizona that he not only met all of the Constitutional qualifications for office, but was in fact a NBC (in spite of realizing and just voting for a resolution that clearly proclaimed TWO citizen parents were required which he knew he did not have).”
Joanne commented:
Pelosi is arrogant and corrupt. She needs to be thrown out of office. I can see how they think they can medicate the public water with fluoride too. I mean, they have the right and authority to force Americans to drink and bathe in fluoride, even if you do not want to consume fluoride and have it enter your body through your largest organ of the body – the skin.
Gina commented:
“Interstate” commerce?! When we’re not even allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines? Does no one up there on Capitol Hill have a brain cell to loan the Speaker’s office?
Ted commented:
The name Nanacy Pelosi does not appear in the book of life. Pray for her.
Solaratov commented:
Joan of Argghh!
October 23rd, 2009 | 7:55 am 6
By that weak logic, we can all be forced to buy a Sham-wow.
We’ve already got one. It lives at the white house.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW
Washington, DC
Joe commented:
Where does it say in the constitution that we can invade Iraq without ever being attacked by that sovereign country?
sickotards commented:
Here is why this hag answered the way she did: The question used a term that she is not familiar with, “Constitution”. So she blew it off and then later had to have her staff look up what that was and come up with some bs answer to provide.
Joe commented:
GW Bush was the biggest denier of the Constitution in the history of the presidency.
Melvin Winter commented:
Long-Lost Charter Printed on Milk Cartons Nationwide: http://tinyurl.com/yfyud8k
Nahanni commented:
Obamao, Nazi Nancy, Dirty Harry and the rest of the Corruptocrats will soon get a lesson in Constitutional law.
They will get to learn all about the 10th amendment first hand.
Mike W commented:
Comrade Joe I suggest you ask your fellow comrades in DC who voted for the Iraq invasion.
And Comrade would you care to elaborate with facts as to how Bush denied constitutional rights?
Comrade you sing the slogans of “Teh Party” with vigor and relish. Be proud Comrade.
Ignorance is Strength and joe has the strength of 10`s
Solaratov commented:
Joe
October 23rd, 2009 | 10:56 am 37
You’re an idiot.
theBuckWheat commented:
“..Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.”
Ah, the endlessly elastic Commerce Clause. You know, the one that overrides the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the one that moots and nukes the idea of enumerated powers.
We call that clause the No Stopping Big Government Clause.
The Elector of Saxony commented:
“GW Bush was the biggest denier of the Constitution in the history of the presidency.”
Really? I can’t think of single right that GWB proscribed for US Citizens? Did he threaten to suspend the FCC licenses of radio stations that carried criticism of his administration? No, that’s the new guy. Did he ban the MSM from the press room? No, he took their loaded questions day in and day out. He acquired the authority to use force in Iraq from multiple UN resolutions, and Public Law 107-243, passed by both houses of Congress, discharging faithfully his Constitutional role as C-in-C, and chief foreign policy executive of the USA. Yes, he held the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 without applying Consitutional protections. But, they weren’t citizens of the United States, and the Geneva Convention never applied to un-uniformed combatants.
What Consitutional protections did YOU lose under GW Bush. Unless you were Sadaam Hussein or an Al-Qaeda/Talibani, you lost nothing. Look, you’re a Commie traitor and no one locked you up.
Joe Idiot & Martin Moron commented:
But…But…Buuuussshhhh!
TomJefferson commented:
Yeah, that Bush, he really stood up to the principles in the Constitution. He created an illegal wiretapping and spy operation against his own citizens, he took the nation to war for his own personal profit, issued signing statement after signing statement when Congress passed laws he didn’t like and violated both national and international law with his torture regime.
For those of you here who can actually read a complete sentence, all you have to do is read the Constitution. I understand you actually read a clown like Gateway who is still fervently hoping to get his hands on Atlas’ fake funbags, but sheesh, just read the document …
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
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.
Crush Liberalism commented:
“GW Bush was the biggest denier of the Constitution in the history of the presidency.”
Exactly! Why, I remember when he took away my right to…um…
Well, there was the time he stepped on the Constitution when he took away my freedom of…uh…
OK, Sunshine, I’ll bite: WHAT rights did Dubya “deny” me?
Joe Idiot & Martin Moron commented:
Hey !TomJefferson at October 23rd, 2009 | 12:25 pm 46
That’s what we have been saying.
But…But…Buuuussshhhh!
People\'s Front of Judea commented:
Nope, no mandatory healthcare, Tom!
daryl commented:
Joe
October 23rd, 2009 | 10:56 am 37
“GW Bush was the biggest denier of the Constitution in the history of the presidency.”
So, I guess that make’s you the champeen water hauler for brackO, huh joe?
Tell us joe, just what’s in it for you to defend this indefencible a**hat impersonating a president, so diligently?
bg commented:
++
pardon if a repeat..
Obama’s Columbia thesis excerpt surfaces
["... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."]
ergo, what Nancy meant to say is: depends
on what the definition of constitution is..
==
bg commented:
++
OT..
Anita’s husbands new job…
==
Joanne commented:
I’m thinking that walking over the Constitution is treason and those who commit the offence should be arrested, tried, and hanged….or given a lethal injection….fine.
Hypogean commented:
Joe
October 23rd, 2009 | 10:50 am 35
Where does it say in the constitution that we can invade Iraq without ever being attacked by that sovereign country?
You’re confused about an awful lot of issues, aren’t you?
JH commented:
The argument: “Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce” is fatally flawed.
If I chose not to get health insurance, I am not party to any interstate commerce,. Shouldn’t that exempt me from this authority? Congress can REGULATE interstate commerce. The Constituation does NOT give Congress the power FORCE citizens to engage in interstate commerce.
bg commented:
++
TomJefferson @ 12:25 pm #46
dang, all that & a bag of chips,
still no facts proffered.. *sigh*
how many times must you & your ilk be
advised that opinions facts do not make..
“one can lead a lib to knowledge,
but on cannot make it think”..
==
Ken commented:
Er, Joanne, how is finding fault with the Constitution in one respect treasonous? There have been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — were they treasonous too?
Just post any old thing here — as long as it’s anti-Obama the crowd will cheer.
Ken commented:
Whoops, my apologies, Joanne. I misread you.
DomesticGoddess commented:
Empty-headed hysterical dingbat.
bg commented:
++
oops re: bg @ 2:21 pm #57
posted wrong link..
here you go..
==
bg commented:
++
okay made a couple of mistakes posting links..
‘think’ link re: #57 has been corrected @ #61..
‘depends on what the definition of constitution is’..
re: #52 link correction..
==
Darren Hutchinson commented:
Not again. This is a boring and annoying argument. Pelosi is right — as many constitutional law scholars (conservative and liberal) have argued. The Commerce Clause (as well as the Spending and Taxation powers) give Congress the power to regulate healthcare – including the individual mandate.
Query: Where does the Constitution say that people have the right to “pray in schools” or that parents have rights over their children, or that Congress can ban partial-birth abortions, or that it can ban child porn on the Internet? Find the explicit language in the Constitution that supports these things! Hint: Not there. But as anyone with a little education knows, the Constitution is drafted in general terms and endows Congress with implied powers.
John DeFlumeri Jr commented:
They can make a law that changes the Constitution if they want to. The will if they need it to get something done!
John DeFlumeri Jr.
Craig commented:
Pelosi’s answer reflects the Americans who don’t give a damn about their Constitution.
A USURPER in the Oval Office? Who cares?
A constitutional matter? You gotta be kidding, right?
It is beyond my wildest imagination to think that such a great country, such a powerful nation… the Leader of the Free World, would accept without a fight, in complete resignation, to be governed and ruled by a Usurper who possesses no constitutional rights or authority to do so.
Explain me how a country that powerful cannot find a way to overthrow legally this Imposter and his corrupted accomplices who are clearly destroying your country? I am breathless!
The only Network that pretends to be “fair and balance”, Fox News, the only one who could help you, is complicit in that huge conspiracy of silence over the eligibility issue. Fox even said it was “bogus”.
And most Americans who pretend to be conservatives or at least republicans, won’t touch it either. Worse, they will even ridiculize it. No wonder you cannot get a hearing in Court, no one cares. Only a few patriots.
Although your judicial system is corrupted to the bones, I am sure that there most be one remaining patriotic honest Judge in this country. But hey! It’s a number’s game, if the “numbers” are not there, even an honest judge will be afraid to touch it.
You reap what you sow!
Chisum commented:
Pelosi’s answer reflects the Americans who don’t give a damn about their Constitution.
==============================
Wrong again, doofus.
If the reporter didn’t care why would he ask the question?
Pelosi’s answer is Pelosi’s answer. You cannot extrapolate from her answer the beliefs of all Americans.
Epic Fail, toadstool.
Btw, don’t pick a fight. You’re too dumb to win!
Craig commented:
“If the reporter didn’t care why would he ask the question?” (Baby Chisum)
He was probably one of the few patriots that I have mentionned in my previous comment.
Thanks God there are still a few.
Chisum commented:
For Craig the Troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc
Craig commented:
Is that you on your Gravatar, Chisum? You seem to have the mentality of about that age.
Eric S. commented:
Darren H… As anyone who’s studied the Constitution and the writings of the founders knows, the Commerce clause granted Congress the authority to regulate Commerce “among the several states”, a phrase which is always used to refer to the individual states as entities and NOT to any individual or corporate entity. The basic point was to prevent states from imposing tariffs on each other and to settle disputes (such as disputes over water or fishing rights in areas bordering two states). Only colossally ignorant overreach by the supremes over the years has caused the current grotesquely broad mal-interpretation of the commerce clause.
Chisum commented:
Of course that’s me. I’m a child prodigy. Since you profess to read minds I was certain you already knew that.
You know who is a patriot, a conservative, a traitor, etc. Surely you can identify child prodigies too.
Craig commented:
I knew you are child… but a prodige… are you out of your mind? NO WAY!
Chisum commented:
Craig, how many 18 month old children do you know that can read, write and type? Only a prodigy could do those things. And YOU were the one who asked if that was me in the picture.
I told you not to start a fight. You are too dumb to win.
Doofus!
Solaratov commented:
Health insurance, while it is a commodity, is not available interstate to people.
Therefore, it would seem that the clause dealing with interstate commerce would NOT apply.
Since congress refused to allow health insurance to be sold interstate (in order to increase competition and bring prices down) – it would seem that congress has screwed their own pooch on this one.
They’re gonna have to find a new justification for this travesty.
John D commented:
This is a serious question that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately it is being treated as a “gotcha” question and everyone is moving on.
The questions should be; if the government can force you to purchase “health care”, is there anything that they CAN’T force you to buy?
Can they force you to buy an new car from GM or Chrysler? Can they force you to buy groceries only from Organic Coops? Can they force you to buy your cable service only from companies that don’t offer Fox News?
As ridiculous as that might sound, what restrictions on their powers exist that would allow them to force you to pay for “health care” but not any of these other things?
This is a question that needs to be taken seriously.
aprilnovember811 commented:
Many lawsuits are gearing up, including the ACLJ, please donate if you can.