Ed Schultz Unfamiliar With Widely-Read Document Known as the Bill of Rights
Even though Ed Schultz has been told by MSNBC to refrain from further "Psycho Talk" segments, no such restraint is evident on his radio show, one of the top rated for liberals in the country.
On Wednesday, for example, Schultz criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for signing a bill into law in 2006 that includes an individual mandate for Bay State residents to buy health insurance, a provision also included in last year's health bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.
Schultz played two clips of Romney, from 2009 and earlier this week on "Good Morning America," talking about the individual mandate, followed by Schultz's criticism (audio) --
SCHULTZ: Have you noticed the flip-flops that's been taking place in the conservative movement about health care reform, how the mandate was about the best thing since sliced bread when they came up with it back in the early '90s. We ran a montage of the sound bites and the lists of those on the conservative agenda who were in favor of the mandate and now all of a sudden, since it's been passed under a Democratic House and Senate and presidency, all of a sudden they're against it and it's a government takeover of health care and a job-crushing Washington takeover. That's their latest. But you don't have to look very far, you've got Mitt Romney here, number 7 there fellas (referring to audio clip), in 2009, Romney saying that what he had done in Massachusetts really should have been a model for the entire country.
ROMNEY (source not cited): Massachusetts is a model for getting everybody insured in a way that doesn't break the bank and that doesn't put the government into the driver's seat and allows people to own their own insurance policies and not to have to worry about losing coverage. That's what Massachusetts did.
SCHULTZ: That was the Mittster in 2009. This is the Mittster just yesterday.
ROMNEY (on "GMA" with George Stephanopoulos): We are a federalist system. We don't need the federal government imposing a one-size-fits-all plan on the entire nation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what he (US District Judge Roger Vinson of Northern District of Florida, who ruled the individual mandate in Obamacare unconstitutional) was talking about specifically was this requirement that people buy health insurance and you had exactly that same requirement in Massachusetts. Why is it right for a state to impose that kind of a mandate and not the federal government?
ROMNEY: Well, states have rights that the federal government doesn't have. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the powers of the federal government are specifically limited.
SCHULTZ (after making buzzer sound): Failure! The federal government can do damn near whatever it wants to do, Mittster. And if it says that you have to have car insurance, you're going to have it, whether it's a state level or a federal lever (sic). Federal law will always supersede state law. Just take it right to the Supreme Court.
Ed, after you're done dusting off that long-neglected copy of the Bill of Rights, you might want to read another document on what can happen when a government tries to do "damn near whatever it wants to do" -- the Declaration of Independence.
As timing would have it, Schultz voiced this sentiment the same week I read an appreciation of Ronald Reagan timed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of his birth on Feb. 6. In a National Review article titled "Reagan Reclaimed: Against the Liberal Revised Standard Version of our 40th president," Steven F. Hayward wrote --
To be sure, Reagan's political practices were idiosyncratic, and his conservatism was not fully recognized by many on the right who wish to emulate him today. This conservatism was not the "stand athwart history" kind, as is evident in Reagan's love for a quotation that drives many conservative intellectuals slightly batty. As George Will put it, "[Reagan] is painfully fond of the least conservative sentiment conceivable, a statement from an anti-conservative, Thomas Paine: 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' Any time, any place, that is nonsense."
Reagan's invocation of Paine, as well as his quotation of John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" sermon, expresses the core of his optimism and belief in the dynamism of American society, a dynamism that can have unconservative effects. But he explained his use of Paine in conservative terms way back in his 1965 autobiography, "Where's the Rest of Me?" "The classic liberal," Reagan wrote, "used to be the man who believed the individual was, and should be forever, the master of his destiny. That is now the conservative position. The liberal used to believe in freedom under law. He now takes the ancient feudal position that power is everything. He believes in a stronger and stronger central government, in the philosophy that control is better than freedom. (emphasis added) The conservative now quotes Thomas Paine, a longtime refuge of the liberals: "Government is a necessary evil; let us have as little of it as possible."
It's all about power, Schultz frequently complains of conservatives. Coming from a man whose capacity for introspection is no greater than his grasp of the nation's founding documents, his criticism is more accurately all about Schultz.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Oh, Man
Submitted by justbob223 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:38pm.
Ed Schultz has got to be one of the stupidest men on the planet.
Ed is not the only member of
Submitted by Reaver on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:02pm.
Ed is not the only member of the media who seems to be a little hazy about that whole tenth amendment thingie.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why is it right for a state to impose that kind of a mandate and not the federal government?
Stephie embarrassed himself by asking that question and Ed doubled down by saying what George was probably thinking.
Value in question
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:13am.
I see value in Stepanpoooluis asking the question.
1. He exposed Fat Ed for the unknowledgeable big government goon that he is
2. It allowed the unknowledgeable that consider this show a primary news source to hear the correct info on Mass law versus Obamacare purchase mandate..
These useless sacks of flesh
Submitted by Thoreau on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:14am.
These useless sacks of flesh are stealing my air.
Actually...
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:30pm.
I think Stephie had a good question, and Romnino had a bad answer. While the 10th could be construed this way, the real reason that states can mandate that you buy insurance (auto insurance) is that driving is a "privilege." As far as MA law, i'm not what that mandates in the way of someone having to purchase something, but if it does, my bet is that it's not been tested in the SCOTUS.
Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on that last point. I am certain of the auto insurance part. If you choose not to get a license, you don't have to buy insurance.
The states are free to impose
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:46am.
The states are free to impose restrictions as they please, whereas teh feds have very specific powers as dictated by the Constitution. The laws about insurance vary from state to state. In Texas if you drive you are required to have insurance on the car you drive. Having a license does not mean you are required to have insurance.
Probably, But . . .
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:14am.
he isn't stupid enought to vote for the RINO Romney. How many here can claim to be that smart?
Hopefully not many.
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:46am.
One can only hope.
Just remember, ed is the
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:35am.
Just remember,
ed is the original "schultz for brains" which helps explain the malodorous aura whenever he opens his mouth or enters a room.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
No limited powers, no
Submitted by Edhenry on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:39am.
No limited powers, no individual freedom or individual resonsibility.
That is liberalism/socialism/marxism that comes out of the ignorance of academia, pushed by weak, co-dependent journaists and abused by politicians whose only grip on power is in the allocation of resources.
Centralized power will lead first to equal misery, then like night to day, to tyranny.
Then destruction.
The loss of freedom is only a generation away.
You forgot his other charming qualities!
Submitted by tvhall on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:19am.
And if I were a woman, one of the fatest, uglyest and least desirable men on the planet. 60% of liberals are women and most of them think he's an Adonis (after Slick and B. Hussan. O.)
Ed's trying harder
Submitted by zenman1661 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:53pm.
I think Ed was miffed about Jon Stewart's pronouncement that he wasn't Olberman enough to take his place and so Ed is doubling down on outrageous and stupid liberal statements.
Aw come on
Submitted by Bob K on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:24pm.
Maybe not being Olby enough he realizes he is on the very short list as the next to get the boot from MSNBC.
The great thing about Ed is
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:55pm.
The great thing about Ed is that he doesn't settle for second best, he continually strives to improve and hone his stupidity.
LAM SON---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:02pm.
While regrettably true, a great quip nonetheless.Poor Ed.
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:57pm.
And this is an example of why "case law" has to go. Folks like Ed have supplanted it for the Supreme Law - The Constitution. Remember, the Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution, indeed, it is part of it - just like the other amendments. The Declaration of Independence is the solid base upon which the Constitution rests.
We are currently being ruled over by 9 robed self proclaimed unelected kings and thier courts of subordinates. Consent of the governed, a republican form of government this is not.
We must Restore our Constitution in all her Glory for Liberty and Prosperity to return to the Freemen of this nation. If folks like Ed wish to fill the role of the British Redcoat, then so be it. That would be his choice and he alone is responsible for it.
GASP!!! Are you trying to
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:40am.
GASP!!!
Are you trying to imply that 'legislated law' and 'judicial fiat' DO NOT supersede "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW".
Does your congress weasel know that?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
I seem to have missed the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:59pm.
I seem to have missed the idea of sweeping health care reform the GOP liked in the 90's. I do remember Hillary cobbling up something in her cauldron behind closed doors with the liberal elites of the time. The GOP panned it and it was promptly shelved. I really don't want to go to Ed's site if I don't have to.
The individual mandate and Republican hypocrisy...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:40pm.
The individual mandate was indeed a crucial provision of the GOP sponsored health reform proposals in the 90's. The conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, included the mandate as part of its recommended reform package (which represented a market-based alternative to a Canadian style system).
http://The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commit ment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the fed eral government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund able tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of 3 Butler and Haislmaier, op. cit 6 medic a l care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. [emphasis added.]
source.
The mandate was later incorporated within the GOP legislative alternative to "HillaryCare" in 1993. Of course when the Democrats recently adopted the idea and included it in the current Health Reform Act, the requirement was quickly recast by the Republicans as an anti-American, unconstitutional abomination.
Jer
So, pointing out that "they do it too"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:52pm.
is supposed to be some sort of revelation that most ALL politicos are hypocritical buttwipes? Appreciate the blinding glimpse of the obvious.Matthew...You obviously are a bit confused
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:05am.
about the purpose and format of the comment section of a blogged item. Jack's article dealt with health reform and Schultz's remarks concerning the individual mandate. Dan indicated that he didn't recall any proposals by the Republicans in the 90's regarding health reform. I addressed that issue by responding directly to Dan and sourced the information I posted. That's pretty much how this post and reply deal is supposed to work. Now, if you have anything of real substance to add, please feel free.
Jer
At what point, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:25am.
did you decide that as a liberal you had anything substantive to say on a conservative site that was going to win hearts and minds to your cause? I am not in the least confused, as I am the conservative here, not you. If you are somehow under the impression that I give a rap about your liberal expression of what the rules on this site are and how you surmise they should apply to me or anyone else here; you are not only sadly mistaken, you waste thread space with your inane lecturing that you pass off as "information" when in reality it is no more than sharpshooting at Republican or conservative methods as a retaliatory measure, nothing more.In other words, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:44am.
you don't have anything of real substance to add with respect to the subject-matter of the blog in general or to Dan's or my comments in particular. Your mission was simply to stick a bogus "they do it too" label on my post and then rag on me when I objected. So mission accomplished. Please move on. There are other libs awaiting your remonstrances.
Jer
"Bogus", you say, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:53am.
do you even pay attention to what you type? My whole substance IS pointing out liberal bullsh*t, and I rarely miss when dealing with a liberal, whether house type or troll variety. Nice try at glossing over your slam at Republicans under the guise of imparting information.So tell me, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:30am.
when was criticism of Republicans officially placed off limits at this website? I was told long before you arrived here that dissenting opinions were welcome at NewsBusters. I gather you don't share that view.
Jer
Ahh, trying that old seniority mind trick, eh, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:55am.
'S okay; I know it's the last refuge of a scoundrel. :o) Give them Repubs hell, Jer! Bust their chops! Give 'em noogies! Wedgies!! Give 'em HELL, Jer!!!Okay, folks...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:08am.
It's official. I now have Matthew Dean's blessing to kick GOP arse.
;-)
Jer
~Ding Dong
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:07pm.
Hi, I'm Brunette with the local chapter of Young Republicans. We're conducting a survey of--Why yes, I'd love to come in, thanks.
As I was saying, we're conducting a survey of--Cookies? Coconut? Why thank you, I think I will have a couple.
So about this survey--What? What perfume am I wearing? It's white jasmine with a touch of sandalwood, I blend it myself. Why, thank you. Yes, it is lovely.
Okay, back to--No, thank you, I never drink in the afternoons. No, really.
I would like to ask--You want to show me what, upstairs? Your Braves memorabilia collection? I'm sure it's very impressive, but I really don't have tim--What? Wait, I have to leave? Your wife is comin--Oh, but I just had a few survey questi--The back door? Well, I guess I could leave by the bac--Sir, really. You don't have to push.
wrathbruchose :)
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:02pm.
"Like"
- Shy 12" (Vinyl)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
~Shy
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:20pm.
I took the cookies with me; help yourself.
Jer, you are going to put
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:54am.
Jer, you are going to put words in my mouth like you always do. My exact wording "I seem to have missed the idea of sweeping health care reform the GOP liked in the 90", notice the idea of sweeping reform. If you are going to say I said something then be accurate. Government supplying health care is always a bad idea, even medicare and medicaid for the simple reason all conservatives understand; that is what the government gives it can also take.
My apologies, Dan...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:21am.
I didn't realize I misinterpreted your recollection. So you did and do recall the GOP health reform bill proposed in 1993? But you didn't consider it sweeping? Or it was sweeping but the Republicans didn't like their own bill?
What exactly did you not recall?
Jer
I looked through the summary
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:45am.
I looked through the summary Kaiser, who has a stake in the Obamacare and stood behind it, provided. Only 19 GOP out of 47 backed the bill with the usual RINO suspects including Spector appearing. It was far different than what the Heritage proposed. I almost fell asleep while reading through it.
One thing it did have in it was the proposal taht coverage be mandatory through employers. Now how this would have worked out mystifies me as not all people are employed. To me it seemed to be a complicated socialist scheme. It was no where as insidiously complex as Obamacare's numerous fine print and vague wording about parts to be determined later by the many bureaucracies and agencies authorized in the law.
It was in response to a Democrat proposal Hillarycare. Both were probably unconstitutional.
Dan...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:03am.
A couple of points: The bill had 19 GOP co-sponsors. That doesn't mean only 19 of 47 backed it. Both the Heritage Foundation proposal and the Republican bill would have resulted in broad changes in our health care system, and, of course both contained the individual mandate provision.
The ultimate constitutionality of either of those plans--or Hillarycare or Obamacare--is still a matter of conjecture. Interestingly, a single-payer government run program would have no trouble passing constitutional muster.
Jer
The bill was backed by 19 GOP
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:16am.
The bill was backed by 19 GOP and since the bill never came for a vote it means that is how many were for it. The heritage plan was less reaching and the 1993 GOP bill is far less reaching than Obamacare. The 1993 bill was in response to a farther reaching bill proposed by Clinton but shelved due to popualr outcry of the people.
1994 brought a new crop of more conservative GOP realizing their mistakes such as the HC bill proposed by Chaffee.
No the matter of the constitutionality is not conjecture by rulings by federal judges. What is conjecture is your opinion on this.
A single payer paid for out of taxe levied would be constitutional if administered such as medicare. Taxes are constitutional, the method of taxing is murky though.
Dan...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:31am.
Two federal judges have ruled it constitutional. Either two or three have ruled it unconstitutional. The final word will be rendered by the Supreme Court. As I said, the ultimate constitutionality of the bill is a matter of conjecture at this point. That is not my opinion. That is fact.
And, once again, 19 does not reflect the actual support for the bill. It's possible that less than nineteen would have eventually voted for it. On the other hand, it could have received substantially more than 19 GOP votes. We'll never know.
Jer
Jer, we both know this is all
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:44am.
Jer, we both know this is all kabuki until SCOTUS chooses to look at it. So it is not conjecture, it is opinion until then. And yes we will never know. In my opinion the bill which is substantially different than the Heritage treatise was put out there as a political ploy to bring out the problems with the Hillary Care crap. I believe it would have died and never seen the light of day no mater what because both the House and the Senate were both democrat controlled.
They did it too, Jer?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:10am.
Just because it was in a proposed legislation 18 years ago doesn't mean that it wasn't unconstitutional.
The difference now is that people have a lot more access to information. In 1993 the internet was still in the baby stages. They might have been able to get away with it then. But we are much better informed now, and see it for what it is. Unconstitutional. If everything the Republicans proposed was perfect, then the Dems would never have a chance.
We Are The 53%
Very true, Denny.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:42am.
I just find the hand-wringing reactions by the GOP to the individual mandate to be a tad disingenuous in view of the political history of the concept.
Jer
Yeah, that's kind of how I look at the hand-wringing---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:01am.
reactions by liberals to Sarah Palin's "inexperience" in relation to the historical political concept of Obama in the same genre.
MD
The problem with that conjecture Jer.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:02am.
You are assuming that the GOP is completely uniform in their thinking, then and now.
Who in the GOP house or senate is hypocritically hand-ringing over this that was supporting the same thing in 1993?
There might be 1 or 2?
Which politicians have changed their positions from 18 YEARS ago?
We Are The 53%
Denny...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:20am.
I'm not even sure the Repubs were all that serious about it back then. I think it had more to do with public posturing than an actual commitment to reform. They didn't really push for it once they got in the majority in '94.
The Heritage Foundation, probably the premier conservative think tank, made its position clear in '90. However, I haven't researched its current view regarding the individual mandate.
Jer.
I was there.
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:26am.
Jer I don't agree with you very often but this is one time I do. I remember all this well and was against it then as I stand against it now. I agree there have been no real reform on health care. when I say real I mean anything that would really work, in that it would reduce cost and improve healthcare overall. The one thing I disagree with most is government control because nothing government touches is ever better in the end. There are real solution but no one not even republicans seem to want to support any of them.
Kind of like democrats and racism
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:44pm.
I find the hand-wringing of democrats over the issue of slavery and racism a bit disingenuous, considering the political history of the two.
Good for you. Don't you
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:28pm.
Good for you. Don't you think those concerns might be more appropriately addressed and expressed on a thread which is at least remotely related to that issue? Yours is hardly a novel view at this website and has been advanced, oh...I would guesstimate a couple hundred times.
Jer
There also was a time, Jer
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:52pm.
when Democrats believed in a strong national defense and cutting taxes to improve the economy. The point is that both Republican opinions on the individual option and Democrats desire for tax-cutting and a strong defense are about 20 years old, and are no longer the mainstream belief of either group.
Did you forget, or did you instead want to play a game with us, that Barack Obama also opposed the individual mandate much more recently in his campaign in 2007-2008? And yet he signed a bill with the mandate. Or is the President the only one allowed to change his mind?
Hypocrite!
Dennis Prager
The Historian...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:54pm.
Your reference to Obama's previous opposition to an individual mandate and "hypocrtical" reversal is a fair point. [I suppose the charge of hypocrisy might also be made regarding his orininal support of a public option and then signing a bill without it.]
My understanding is that once the public option was abandoned by the administration, the individual mandate became a critical premium cost control feature of the plan eventually passed. Unless there was full participation, the costs of coverage for certain classes of insured would be prohibitive.
Jer
Jer, it's not a mandate
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:16pm.
Jer, the proposal was a tax break for the costs of an insurance policy, not a mandate to purchase them. The GOP wasn't trying to FORCE people to purchase an insurance policy, it was offering an incentive for YOU to make that decisions for yourself. You wouldn't have been charged a FINE, in the form of additional taxes, like the Obama Administration wants to do, if you didn't purchase insurance. You would receive a tax credit for a percentage of cost of that insurance.
Once again, there was NO mandate to purchase insurance. What part of that don't you understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:14pm.
Do you have the precise wording of the relevant provision of the GOP proposal in 1993? I have seen comparative legislative charts and accompanying articles which state unequivocally that it was indeed a mandate. And, once again, the language I quoted and emphasized earlier in this thread from the Heritage Foundation plan is susceptible to no other construction.
So, if it was otherwise, there is a lot of misinformation being disseminated on the internet about the issue--which, admittedly, wouldn't exactly be unprecedented.
Jer
Doubling down on stupid
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:13pm.
BRAINDEAD ED: "The federal government can do damn near whatever it wants to do,"
Whaaa? But then Schultz doubles down on stupid by bringing up the asinine "car insurance" argument. Aren't Schultz's employers embarrased by this dolt's idiotic rantings?
"...no such restraint is
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:14pm.
"...no such restraint is evident on his radio show, one of the top rated for liberals in the country"
Er - isn't that like saying Moe was tthe "smartest Stooge"? :)
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:22pm.
Laughed out loud for that one
Former Gov. Romney is slightly mistaken....
Submitted by big.league.slider on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:22pm.
"ROMNEY: Well, states have rights that the federal government doesn't have."
It's a small, but very important point. But I believe only citizens have rights under the U.S. Constitution. State and federal governments have powers. And as Romney points out, the federal ones are (theoretically) limited and enumerated.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the Constitution can correct me if I'm wrong.
FWIW BLS,
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:16pm.
I wouldn't call that a small point at all. Indeed, it is quite fundamental and a most important distinction in my book.
Rights come from the Creator, they are present as a result of our very Humanity, whereas powers come from, are delegated by, the willing consent of the governed.
I agree Ashrak.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:10am.
That is THE point!! All the "powers granted" are small by comparison. "We the people" grant. The government is allowed.
States, as well as the
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:50am.
States, as well as the federal government, only possess those 'powers and authorities' GRANTED to them by the People.
Traditionally, the States have greater leeway due to regional, cultural and geographical considerations, but neither entity has unlimited powers or authorities that cannot be held in check BY THE PEOPLE.
That help?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
That's Why He's Special Ed.
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:02pm.
Obviously Failed American History.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Not surprised...
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:04pm.
My guess is Ed Schultz is unfamiliar with even owning a pair of shorts without skid marks.
Mr. Ed's Wisdom
Submitted by Twig1976 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:38pm.
Sgt. Shultz: Encouraging stupidy in America since 2009!
Poor Ed
Submitted by donabernathy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:01am.
I'm pretty sure Ed's dad was the first guy with exact change.
roflmao
Don!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:12am.
"Now that's funny, I don't care what anybody says."
Dazzling BS
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:21am.
You have heard of the old saying about "dazzling someone with your brilliance and baffling them with your BS?"
In Ed's case, his baffling BS and utter stupidity are both brilliant and dazzling.
Brilliant with a neon sign saying "see, I'm really stupid!" and dazzling in the amount of how much stupidity he excretes.
Wow.....simply.....wow.
-Jon
he's not known as 'special Ed' for nothing
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:31am.
Once again Ed rides the short bus to work.
I don't know how some of
Submitted by poseA on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:53am.
I don't know how some of these people survive beyond adulthood.
Sorry, I know of no one who survives beyond adulthood
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:29pm.
Sorry, I know of no one who survives beyond adulthood.
But if you mean "into adulthood", the average liberal has not made it that far. Otherwise he would understand that individual rights and individual responsibility must be borne together. Liberals are big on having the former and ducking the latter.
Dennis Prager
Just ask Jan Schakowski.
Submitted by jdawg2009 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:08am.
Just ask Jan Schakowski. She'll tell you the 10th Amendment is part of a radical plot by Republicans and the Tea Party.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/jan-schakowsky-quoting-constitution-revolutionary-plan-by-radical-republicans
jdawg2009,
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:14am.
Folks in Jan's neck of the woods couldn't care less about any of the Constitution, much less the Tenth Amendment. Note: The Second Amendment is banned in her neighborhood also and people there think that it is perfectly fine.
Up there in Chicagoland, it is almost like a Bizzarro world where they must think that the most votes at election time sees the candidate voted off the island.
Illinois - The place where 3 counties lord over the other 99.
The Constitution was apparently a waste of parchment and ink
Submitted by JakeMo on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:25am.
Had he been a master of language equal to the liberal geniuses that drafted our wonderful healthcare bill, the circumlocutious Mr. Madison could have saved a lot of ink by simply penning, "The federal government can do damn near whatever it wants."
Could have saved us the time of reading all those superfluous words. And stuff.
I'm sure that would have gone over very well with the men that risked their lives and lost many friends trying to free themselves from a government that believed the same thing as Mr. Schultz.
Ranting Past The Graveyard
Submitted by Boil It Down on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:23am.
I think that kind of sums up Ed's deep fears of being unable to equal Olbermann. When you consider that he's aiming at a low brow audience tuning in for the WWF news, the level of his ignorance doesn't come into play. The frequency with which he displays his lack of knowledge shows that it is of no concern to him, MSNBC or COMCAST.
Well......it's mighty damned important to the service of the public and me.
The left's true FASCIST colors!
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:49am.
Psycho Eddie just had the mask ripped off.
Never mind Olbermann
Submitted by HockeyKid on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:02am.
Ed's trying ever so hard to be the "liberal Rush Limbaugh" that he doesn't realize that particular matter/anti-matter combination has resulted in the annihilation of any brain cells he may have originally had.
He should be the "WRONG!" poster in every civics class in the country.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Of course he doesn't know anything about the Bill of Rights
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:41am.
He stops listening because he thinks they're saying "Bill O'Reilly,"
Special Ed's evolutionary journey.....
Submitted by donabernathy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:01am.
next stop....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Pdu5y-zbY
roflmao
Hey msnbc!
Submitted by Patriot II on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:42am.
Who is the psycho here? you or shultzie? What else would that mental midget talk about but psycho crap..............HE IS A FREAKING PSYCHO imho!!!