Democrats Invent Constitutional Clause

I’d bet he meant the general welfare clause.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’d bet he meant the general welfare clause.[/quote]

I bet if you told him that now he would.

Whatever.

Btw, it can be more effective to use only strong arguments rather than to grasp at and make a production of every straw.

I understand Bill, but wouldn’t you prefer it if an elected official in high office for decades who is also the chairman of, of all things, the judiciary committee, were at least intimate enough with our constitution to readily know the text if not the meaning of arguably the most well known and highly abused clause of all? Along with a couple others?

I think this speaks volumes about how far the constitution is from the minds of many of todays “lawmakers”. It’s not like this guy is some freshman from Wounded Knee South Dakota.

Now, I think all will already be able to guess accurately that I don’t like Conyers.

However, ANYONE when speaking off the cuff can have a word just not come to mind regardless of how thoroughly well-known it is to them, and instead say another word.

E.g., “general” being the desired next word but for whatever reason not being able to come up with it and on the spot saying “good and” instead.

It would be different if it were a prepared formal statement.

It is IMO a ridiculous idea that Conyers didn’t know of the general welfare clause. While there is much of the Constitution that most in Congress don’t know, I’m sure, they all love the general welfare clause because they see it as the bedrock argument for their power. Any idea that there was just no discussion among the Democrats at all as to whether their bill could likely survive the Supreme Court would just be ridiculous and has been plainly stated not to be the case.

They have their arguments, which are the general welfare clause and the commerce clause.

Conyers knows that.

An off-the-cuff verbal gaffe does not “speak volumes.”

Now if the desire is just to preach to the choir then this is I suppose entertaining stuff for those that want to pretend that the worst case must be the case.

However if there’s any intent at all to give some persuasion to those that are undecided, advancing obviously weak (at best) arguments like this which they spot as such is a good way of having these conclude that quite possibly all of one’s arguments are, similarly, nonsense and are product of bias, not objective consideration.

It’s the equivalent of making a big production that the gloves are going to fit OJ.

The overall argument is far more persuasive when it doesn’t have fail-jobs in it like that one, or, IMO, this one.

Maybe, and your points are well taken but did you actually see the clip?

His somewhat stammering grasping around disposition said to me that this isn’t something he thinks about a whole lot. I’m not even sure if some less committed minds might not be influenced by watching the judiciary committee chair come off as if he doesn’t REALLY care that much about the constitution which if they know anything, they know it’s supposed to be the foundation of everything we do.

I’m willing to grant anybody human error and have here in the past, but my 14 year old daughter would be able to accurately cite the general welfare clause at least by name. Even if I grabbed her still rubbing her eyes after waking up in the morning. I think congress as a whole has grown so accustomed to doing whatever they want that constitutionality is an afterthought at best.

Wouldn’t you think if the judiciary committee chair were passing a piece of legislation that “fundamentally transforms” the relationship of American citizens to their government he would have the lawful basis of that legislation ready at hand just in case ya know somebody asked? Have we come to expect this little?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Maybe, and your points are well taken but did you actually see the clip?

His somewhat stammering grasping around disposition said to me that this isn’t something he thinks about a whole lot. I’m not even sure if some less committed minds might not be influenced by watching the judiciary committee chair come off as if he doesn’t REALLY care that much about the constitution which if they know anything, they know it’s supposed to be the foundation of everything we do.

I’m willing to grant anybody human error and have here in the past, but my 14 year old daughter would be able to accurately cite the general welfare clause at least by name. Even if I grabbed her still rubbing her eyes after waking up in the morning. I think congress as a whole has grown so accustomed to doing whatever they want that constitutionality is an afterthought at best.

Wouldn’t you think if the judiciary committee chair were passing a piece of legislation that “fundamentally transforms” the relationship of American citizens to their government he would have the lawful basis of that legislation ready at hand just in case ya know somebody asked? Have we come to expect this little?
[/quote]

No, I’m sure he doesn’t spend his nights worrying about whether proposed legislation really is Constitutional, in the originalist sense, or not. He and other members of Congress treat the Constitution as if it were toilet paper.

However, they do certainly consider if it’s the case that proposed legislation would most likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court, which finds all kinds of things “Constitutional” based on it being a living and breathing document and their having astounding skill at stretching things.

As you say, your 14-year old daughter knows of the general welfare clause.

To think it more likely that he didn’t than that he had a verbal gaffe, especially as he had the latter half of the phrase be the exact same argument that will be used to defend the legislation (along with the commerce clause) seems to me a product of bias and wanting to say “Look how ignorant he is” rather than objective analysis of what is most likely.

As you said, he was clearly not at his verbal best.

If you’ve never been where you couldn’t come up with a word or phrase you know perfectly well, and either know that you can’t come up with it or instead say something else that isn’t what you mean, then I guess what I am saying could make little sense to you.

However, for many people it happens frequently.

For example, just yesterday in a conversation I accidentally said “creatine hydrolysate” which makes zero sense, when I meant casein hydrolysate. As it happened I spotted it as I did it, but there was an occasion a few months back where I made the same strange substitution in a post and did not see that I had done it.

And yes, there would be people who if sufficiently biased would then start some noise about how I don’t even know that, blah blah blah. Not because it’s the most rational thing to conclude that I wrote it out of ignorance – it’s an unlikely explanation for that particular case – but because it makes them happy to make the charge.

I see this one the same way.

I don’t like Conyers, not one bit, but I think it’s unproductive to make hay out of what is most probably merely a verbal gaffe. Surely there are enough legit things with which to criticize the man.

At least you didn’t say “creatine AND hydrolysate” =]

Conyers is old and thoroughly saturated in hyper partisan DC politics. Maybe he just screwed up, but he didn’t even accidentally site an existing constitutional clause or get real close to the name of the one he was looking for.

Bigger things to quibble over? Certainly, but I think this was worth mentioning. Imagine if Sarah Palin said something like the “the exclusion clause” when referencing the establishment of a state religion for example.

What? Having “welfare” in there when the general welfare clause is indeed one of the two they will use doesn’t count as being halfway there?

It’s one out of the two words being right, and inasmuch as the word “welfare” appears only twice in the Constitution, his use of it suggests that he had that clause in mind.

I don’t think the fact that the media treats Sarah Palin unjustly is a good argument for making weak or bogus arguments against Democrats.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What? Having “welfare” in there when the general welfare clause is indeed one of the two they will use doesn’t count as being halfway there?

It’s one out of the two words being right, and inasmuch as the word “welfare” appears only twice in the Constitution, his use of it suggests that he had that clause in mind.

I don’t think the fact that the media treats Sarah Palin unjustly is a good argument for making weak or bogus arguments against Democrats.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out how this works yet, you must use every slip up to make them look like retards. Its what they did to Bush to get complete control of the house and the senate and if you want to have any chance or repealing laws you better get on board.

Well, it is what you believe: that presenting a mix of lame arguments and strong ones is better than using exclusively strong arguments, of which there are plenty,

I wouldn’t put it as that I “haven’t figured out” that the above method “must” be used.

It’s your method, and the method of many who are not very successful in persuading undecided let alone actually-opposed people.

Using only strong arguments works much, much better.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What? Having “welfare” in there when the general welfare clause is indeed one of the two they will use doesn’t count as being halfway there?

It’s one out of the two words being right, and inasmuch as the word “welfare” appears only twice in the Constitution, his use of it suggests that he had that clause in mind.

I don’t think the fact that the media treats Sarah Palin unjustly is a good argument for making weak or bogus arguments against Democrats.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out how this works yet, you must use every slip up to make them look like retards. Its what they did to Bush to get complete control of the house and the senate and if you want to have any chance or repealing laws you better get on board.[/quote]

Bill you havn’t figured out yet if you do not see things the same way the circle jerk society sees them then it is you that fails to see the truth:)

This isn’t any dumber than the Attorney General saying that the HCR bill “violates” the Commerce Clause.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What? Having “welfare” in there when the general welfare clause is indeed one of the two they will use doesn’t count as being halfway there?

It’s one out of the two words being right, and inasmuch as the word “welfare” appears only twice in the Constitution, his use of it suggests that he had that clause in mind.

I don’t think the fact that the media treats Sarah Palin unjustly is a good argument for making weak or bogus arguments against Democrats.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out how this works yet, you must use every slip up to make them look like retards. Its what they did to Bush to get complete control of the house and the senate and if you want to have any chance or repealing laws you better get on board.[/quote]

Bill you havn’t figured out yet if you do not see things the same way the circle jerk society sees them then it is you that fails to see the truth:)
[/quote]

I don’t think that at all, but Bill is trying to reach a different group of people then I am. I say that most of the people over 40 pretty much are set in stone on their beliefs. So the people to reach are those under 40, and like it or not the under 40 crowd prefers to see massive amounts of people saying something dumb, an argument that is weak or strong does not matter.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What? Having “welfare” in there when the general welfare clause is indeed one of the two they will use doesn’t count as being halfway there?

It’s one out of the two words being right, and inasmuch as the word “welfare” appears only twice in the Constitution, his use of it suggests that he had that clause in mind.

I don’t think the fact that the media treats Sarah Palin unjustly is a good argument for making weak or bogus arguments against Democrats.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out how this works yet, you must use every slip up to make them look like retards. Its what they did to Bush to get complete control of the house and the senate and if you want to have any chance or repealing laws you better get on board.[/quote]
In this respect and in this administration I have to agree with Bill. We don’t need every little slip up. We are being handed a locked and loaded arsenal. That said, I do see this as more significant than he does, but it’s not huge news.

In fact if you harp on slip ups that aren’t real major often enough it can make you look petty. Especially with today’s media. FOX was pretty sly about it. They slipped it in in an overall segment about the constitutionality of the mandate and simply played Conyer’s response without commentary. At least none that I saw.

I have the same approach in that regardless of age. If a person has over time come to think that when I say something I have reasons behind it that make sense and facts that can be backed up, then they are likely to give more credibility to what I say on some new thing where I do the same, than if I were known for – for example – proclaiming that Democrats are inventing new parts to the Constitution based on a verbal gaffe.

I think that is true regardless of whether the person is 20, 40, 60, or 80.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
This isn’t any dumber than the Attorney General saying that the HCR bill “violates” the Commerce Clause. [/quote]

Those who do not purchase health insurance do not participate in any kind of commerce.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I have the same approach in that regardless of age. If a person has over time come to think that when I say something I have reasons behind it that make sense and facts that can be backed up, then they are likely to give more credibility to what I say on some new thing where I do the same, than if I were known for – for example – proclaiming that Democrats are inventing new parts to the Constitution based on a verbal gaffe.

I think that is true regardless of whether the person is 20, 40, 60, or 80.[/quote]

I would like to think that would work, but what I saw happen over 8 years and how effective it was leads me to believe that it is not the most effective way.

This thread was also done in fun.

Well, I don’t think that for example Hannity was making this charge (allegedly inventing new Constituional clause to support Obamacare) out of fun, and I don’t think the Washington Times was.

No, I think they quite seriously wanted to do exactly what you were saying: without letting weakness of the argument stop you, use any and every argument to attack – or more precisely you said “use every slip up to make them look like retards.”