Coburn Throws Curve Ball to Kagan

[AuH20]

I freaking love it!!!!!!!!!!!! Ram it down their throat!!! Explain the scope of the commerce clause. :D


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded)

[Cowlesy]

I literally applauded after watching this.

[jmdrake]

Yes! Somebody finally gets it! It's all about the commerce clause! If you understand that one part of the constitution you understand where almost all of the abuse of the federal government comes from!

This was a simple question really. What do the few words in the constitution "regulate interstate commerce" mean? Are you engaging in interstate commerce when you sit down and eat dinner? If yes the federal government has the power to regulate it. If no then it doesn't. We need to learn to quit arguing everything from a "libertarian" point of view and start understanding how to make (often the same) point from a constitutional point of view.

[MRoCkEd]

wow

[someperson]

Well, that was a disturbing display...

[Kotin]

Coburn just earned some points in my book.. Kagan can go to hell

[GunnyFreedom]

horrified. absolutely horrified at the thought of this lunatic as a SCOTUS justice

[devil21]

I literally applauded after watching this.

He let her off the hook. She was squirming and looking at the ceiling and was about to say something really stupid when he spoke up again. It's nice to see a question that actually means something but I wish he would have let her flail on the hook for a while longer just to see what she'd say. She's obviously not a good speaker, nor a legal genius, and seems to me to just be a selection to further the determined agenda of destroying the Constitution. She's a puppet and she's been dodging a lot of the questions in her hearings.

[Deborah K]

You realize of course, that Dr. Coburn is making reference to the fact that Congress passed Obamacare under the guise of the commerce clause........

And you also know that this woman has never been a judge and therefore has NEVER tried a case and will be on the highest bench for another 30-40 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deborah K]

horrified. absolutely horrified at the thought of this lunatic as a SCOTUS justice

Our only solace is that she is replacing a flaming liberal and not a conservative.

[BlackTerrel]

Good find. Thanks for posting.

[Koz]

She wants to say yes the Commerce Clause gives the federal government unlimited powers and I would rule that as being Constitutional but she knows she can't. She truly believes it though.

She is going to get rubber stamped and again the American people will get screwed.

Is there really any hope left for liberty??

[Koz]

Our only solace is that she is replacing a flaming liberal and not a conservative.

I agree with you, but that's not much to take solace in.

[Deborah K]

I agree with you, but that's not much to take solace in.

Well since I lean conservative, I'd say it's a whole lot better than if she were replacing a conservative. Then we'd be losing ground to a liberal bench that interprets the Constitution according to its whim (ala Ginsberg).

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, that was a good part. She didn't have an answer. She's very good at changing the subject though.

It's just another example of her belief in a "benevolent" dictator government. The government can do whatever it wants, but it would never do anything "dumb". :rolleyes:

[MsDoodahs]

I have not watched any of it, but heard from a GOPer who has and he's FED UP WITH THE GOP after seeing how they behaved with this woman.

Which is a good thing - he's realizing NEITHER SIDE is worth a pea turkey's damn.

[jmdrake]

He let her off the hook. She was squirming and looking at the ceiling and was about to say something really stupid when he spoke up again. It's nice to see a question that actually means something but I wish he would have let her flail on the hook for a while longer just to see what she'd say. She's obviously not a good speaker, nor a legal genius, and seems to me to just be a selection to further the determined agenda of destroying the Constitution. She's a puppet and she's been dodging a lot of the questions in her hearings.

Yeah I guess you're right. It would been cool if he had asked her "Do you even know what the interstate commerce clause is?" but that would have been too disrespectful. Maybe "Could you explain how someone is engaged in interstate commerce when they sit down and eat dinner? Say if they grew the food themselves and then ate it?"

[07041826]

I just shared the vid with my GF (a dem) and she was a bit shocked

[Golding]

I really would have loved to hear her reply. Unfortunately, now if she ever gets asked that again she will have a canned response to field it.

[ctiger2]

The commerce clause needs to be defined to death. The definition of TO REGULATE is the key.

[libertybrewcity]

she seems like an idiot. what the hell was obama thinking?

also, what book is coburn holding up?

[jmdrake]

The commerce clause needs to be defined to death. The definition of TO REGULATE is the key.

No. The definition of "interstate commerce" is the key. Before 1942 local commerce and things that weren't commerce at all didn't fall under the interstate commerce clause. It's all a question of jurisdiction. If you are a private business and what you do doesn't cross state lines you are not engaged in interstate commerce and the federal government has no jurisdiction. If you do cross state lines the federal government's jurisdiction is still limited to what happens at the actual crossing. (In other words the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over your production even if you ultimately sell your products out of state). No jurisdiction, no legitimate federal involvement. Now think of all of the ways the federal government intrudes on things that aren't actually interstate commerce and you'll get the picture.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I freaking love it!!!!!!!!!!!! Ram it down their throat!!! Explain the scope of the commerce clause. :D


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded)

That is conservative pornography and I am offended such a bold posting of erotica would meet such open approval here at RPF. Where are the ratings on this video? It needs a XXXX^69 rating.

For the sake of all things decent please keep both hands on the keyboard when poking around this thread.

[jmdrake]

she seems like an idiot. what the hell was obama thinking?

also, what book is coburn holding up?

I think it's the Koran.

[low preference guy]

she seems like an idiot. what the hell was obama thinking?

also, what book is coburn holding up?

Federalist papers?

[MatM]

Federalist papers?

I was thinking that, the Constitution isn't that long.

[Cowlesy]

It's the Constitution, I have a copy that looks like it somewhere.

[jmdrake]

It's the Constitution, I have a copy that looks like it somewhere.

A copy of the constitution that is that big? :eek: Does it have all of the drafts and supporting documents that go with it?

[BuddyRey]

Bump!

[libertybrewcity]

the comments section mentions federalist papers. the constitution is only 10 pages or something, i don't see how it can be the constitution..

[teacherone]

that's not a curveball--that's a softball for anybody with half a brain and respect for freedom.

[anaconda]

I freaking love it!!!!!!!!!!!! Ram it down their throat!!! Explain the scope of the commerce clause. :D


YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded)

Why did the video stop after only a minute and nineteen seconds?

[Deborah K]

Here's an interesting take on the commerce clause as it pertains to Obamacare:



March 23, 2010
The Federalist Papers and Obamacare
Patrick Jakeway

While publishing the Federalist papers in 1787/1788, two of the major architects of the Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, made some highly pertinent comments that apply to Obamacare.

James Madison, Federalist Number 14:


“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those objects, which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.”


James Madison, Federalist Number 10:


“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquires are directed.”


Concerning Article 1, Section 8(3) of the Constitution that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 17:


“The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same state; the supervision of agriculture, and of other concerns of a similar nature; all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.”


(Note: if a transaction between a doctor and patient is not local and therefore subject to local and not general jurisdiction, like buying produce from a farmer, then I don't know what is. Article I, Section 8 was clearly focused on regulating commerce with foreign nations, eliminating multiple currencies within the states and removing inter-state tariffs in place during the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers are turning in the graves at this massive intrusion into individual liberty.)

Last but not least Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 16 something very profound considering the situation we find ourselves in:


“The success of it [an illegal usurpation of authority] would require not only a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice, and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their state representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale, and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest.”


The Founding Fathers defined the citizens as the natural guardians of the Constitution. Ultimately, it comes down to us. Remember the immortal motto of Gen. Nathaniel Greene who led his rag-tag militia across the Carolina in 1779-1780, "lost" every battle until providing the Continentals their first major victory at Kings Mountain and cut down Cornwallis' troops from 30,000 to 15,000 before he quit Charleston and headed to Yorktown:


"I fight, I am defeated, I rise and fight again."


It is precisely now that one must not despair. Now is the time for lovers of liberty to throw themselves into the national scale. You are the natural guardians of the Constitution. Now is not the time for Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots; now is the time for the heirs of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Ben Franklin, James Monroe, John Adams, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry, Nathaniel Greene and Ethan Allen.

You have a choice. What will it be? Acquiescence? Submission? Defeat? Where would we be if all the aforementioned had quit when they faced a little headwind (and, comparatively speaking, this is light breeze next to Valley Forge). Be ashamed; be very ashamed if you choose to go gently into that dark neo-Soviet night. Be assured; a new dawn of American liberty will rise as American Patriots resolve to protect their Constitution and use all of its provisions to protect their liberties.



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/the_federalist_papers_and_obam.html

[BenIsForRon]

where's the rest of the video? It didn't have the rest of her response. Did they just move on after that?

[Pennsylvania]

where's the rest of the video? It didn't have the rest of her response. Did they just move on after that?

That's what I was thinking. Seems like the most relevant part is missing.

[tropicangela]

That's what I was thinking. Seems like the most relevant part is missing.

Been looking for the rest too. Came here to maybe find it.

[Sentient Void]

Loved it so far... but where the hell is the end?

If he let her off the hook I'm disappointed.

[tremendoustie]

Good vid, but he should have asked, "do you believe this law would be constitutionally authorized by the commerce clause", not "would it violate the commerce clause".

[John Taylor]

Perhaps the Senator from Oklahoma could have asked her as a follow-up along the lines of: "could you please describe for me a law which violates the commerce clause?"

[georgiaboy]

Unbelievable.
To think that she couldn't straight up answer that question.
Now I know why I can't watch these hearings.
I'd just get madder and madder.

How on earth people can hold to her views causes conniptions in my brain.

[erowe1]

Is it me, or does her voice sound a lot like Mark Levin in one of his calmer moments?

[Philhelm]

I can't decide if Kagan looks more like John Lovitz or Nathan Lane...

[Golding]

Damage control is appealing to the stupidity of the masses by downplaying this as "Conservatives circulating video of Kagan lectured about fruits and vegetables", with zero mention of the commerce clause and its abuses. Go figure.

[HOLLYWOOD]

wow


yeah... WOW

I can't believe she gave that response... hell with her being a Socialist... Kagan's a Fasco-Communist!

"Courts Would Be Wrong to Strike Down Senseless Laws" OMFG!

[silus]

It would be easier to dislike her if she wasn't so hot.

[Philhelm]

It would be easier to dislike her if she wasn't so hot.

I know her physical attractiveness is a non-issue when compared to her potential role in our government system. I also realize that it is somewhat childish to ridicule another person because of their appearance. Having said that, every time I see her, I think, "Jesus titty-fucking Christ! That's an ugly woman!"

[silus]

that's not a curveball--that's a softball for anybody with half a brain and respect for freedom.


I know her physical attractiveness is a non-issue when compared to her potential role in our government system. I also realize that it is somewhat childish to ridicule another person because of their appearance. Having said that, every time I see her, I think, "Jesus titty-fucking Christ! That's an ugly woman!"
Well, if she was super attractive at least I get some benefit from seeing her.

[BenIsForRon]

Where's the rest of the video? Honestly,this seems more like a promo video for Coburn. I'd like to know whether or not he held her feet to the fire.

It seems like Kagan thinks the commerce clause can justify anything, but I'd like to see what she said.

[Romulus]

cant see the rest, but he let her off the hook... instead of exposing her, he felt the need to voice his opinion...

[fisharmor]

No. The definition of "interstate commerce" is the key.

The word 'interstate' does not appear in the text of the US Constitution.

The verbiage is as follows:

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

Article 1, section 8, 3rd power outlined.

The crux of the matter has nothing to do with the definition of 'interstate' and everything to do with the definition of among (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/among).

When you review the word among (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/among) it becomes really quite clear that the word is never applied to the contents or innards of the objects in question - only to the objects themselves.

To use the examples from dictionary.com:
He was among friends.
He was not inside his friends, nor was he among his friends' entrails, or his teeth, or any other part of his friends.

Divide the cigars among you.
Don't divide the cigars so that each finger gets one, divide them so that each person gets one. The persons are the objects among which we are dividing them.

If they had meant it to mean that congress has the power to regulate commerce that takes place between people, they would have said "to regulate commerce amid the states" or "to regulate commerce inside the states" or "to regulate commerce between the people".

To sum up: not only does it not mean what everyone thinks it means, but it doesn't even say what everyone (including people on our side) thinks it says.
If we're going to play the vocabulary game, we need to play our game tighter than we do.

[moostraks]

yeah... WOW

I can't believe she gave that response... hell with her being a Socialist... Kagan's a Fasco-Communist!

"Courts Would Be Wrong to Strike Down Senseless Laws" OMFG!

My jaw was on the ground as to that response as well!:eek:

[low preference guy]

The government already tells us what we can and cannot eat.

Try having a party and serve marijuana brownies. They'll raid your house and lock you in a cage.

[pacelli]

This lady's publicity campaign reminds me of the same one that they used with Harriet Miers.

[Xenophage]

She wants to say yes the Commerce Clause gives the federal government unlimited powers and I would rule that as being Constitutional but she knows she can't. She truly believes it though.

She is going to get rubber stamped and again the American people will get screwed.

Is there really any hope left for liberty??

I don't think most well-educated liberals truly believe the commerce clause grants, or was every intended to grant, unlimited power to Government. They simply want the government to have more power, and they'll rationalize it any way they can.

[erowe1]

If they had meant it to mean that congress has the power to regulate commerce that takes place between people, they would have said "to regulate commerce amid the states" or "to regulate commerce inside the states" or "to regulate commerce between the people".

But all commerce, including commerce with foreign nations, with Indian tribes, and among the states, is commerce between people. To regulate commerce in any of those three forms is still to regulate commerce between people. So I don't quite get what you're saying.

Are you saying that it only means commerce between one government and another? If so, I don't think that interpretation works.