Impeachment for violating Sworn Oath?

[ParanoiA]

I'm sure everyone's probably heard of this or has seen this clip. This accidental slip of the truth helps to validate suspicions many of us Constitutional types have long suspected out of the democratic party.

 

(And to be fair, it's not that republicans are off the hook, it's that republicans do what they do and actually believe the constitution supports them. So, they manage to escape blatant dismissal of our founding document.)

 

 

So, Phil Hare doesn't care what the constitution says. Yet, he took an oath to uphold it. Shouldn't he be impeached? And removed from office, never allowed to return? Isn't this open and shut?

 

Granted, he'll likely lose his reelection bid, but shouldn't we the people insist on making an example out of him?

 

To be clear, the message is not "ha, we don't like yer socialist gov'ment so get on outta here" - the message is "you are expected to at least believe you are upholding your sworn oath". In other words, I'm not advocating political criminality like we got with GWB, I'm advocating punishing any leader that violates their oath.

[jryan]

No reason to go that route on a throw away comment.

 

Just vote him out.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm sure everyone's probably heard of this or has seen this clip. This accidental slip of the truth helps to validate suspicions many of us Constitutional types have long suspected out of the democratic party.

 

That politicians have little respect for the law?

 

(And to be fair, it's not that republicans are off the hook, it's that republicans do what they do and actually believe the constitution supports them. So, they manage to escape blatant dismissal of our founding document.)

 

I find it hard to believe that all of them believe everything they do is supported by the constitution. Warrentless wiretaps, going to war without declaring war, that sort of thing.

 

 

So, Phil Hare doesn't care what the constitution says. Yet, he took an oath to uphold it. Shouldn't he be impeached? And removed from office, never allowed to return? Isn't this open and shut?

 

Granted, he'll likely lose his reelection bid, but shouldn't we the people insist on making an example out of him?

 

To be clear, the message is not "ha, we don't like yer socialist gov'ment so get on outta here" - the message is "you are expected to at least believe you are upholding your sworn oath". In other words, I'm not advocating political criminality like we got with GWB, I'm advocating punishing any leader that violates their oath.

 

But was this a slip of the truth, or a slip of the tongue? Maybe he meant, "I don't worry about what you think the constitution says about this". He does seem to believe that healthcare should fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

He stuck his foot in his mouth, big time, when he said "I don't worry about the constitution on this, to be honest." He then proceeded to stick his other foot in his mouth when he talked about what he "cares" about, so now it seems that he doesn't care about the Constitution (rather than not worry about it presumably because you're in compliance). He then proceeded to stick even more feet in his mouth by professing ignorance on important matters and apparently lying as well.

[iNow]

Impeachment IMO is too far, since he did not engage in an unconstitutional action. If he were to act in a way which aligned with his comment, then yes... probably impeachment worthy. However, merely saying it? No way. Too much "thought crime" issues, not to mention first amendment.

[Moontanman]

So any hint of socialism is against the constitution?

[bascule]

This accidental slip of the truth helps to validate suspicions many of us Constitutional types have long suspected out of the democratic party.

 

Suspected about the Democratic party... from a sample size of one? The actions of one person do not reflect upon the party as a whole.

 

Does this mean you're unconcerned about Constitutional violations by the Republican party? Or are you arguing that Democrats like to violate the Constitution and Republicans don't?

[jackson33]

Impeachment itself is meaningless and for conviction (Senate Trial) your required 2/3rd vote for conviction, even then simply means thrown off the bench (Judges), or out of office. I believe there as been one Senator impeached, 1798 or so, but a good many have been censured on ethics charges. Some States can still use recall, and most all could adopt a system in a week, where the voters can recall their representatives and probably what should have been going on, over the past couple year.

 

On the 'Hare' incident, he was stating an opinion. A person taking an oath of office, to up hold the Constitution, doesn't have to even believe IN the Constitution, just up hold it, to his/her subjective understanding.

 

 

I find it hard to believe that all of them believe everything they do is supported by the constitution. Warrentless wiretaps, going to war without declaring war, that sort of thing. [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; These things any many more are implied in the Constitution, under Executive Powers, in time of War. The checks in place, on the Executive, were never and are not today being applied, financing operations.

[ParanoiA]

I find it hard to believe that all of them believe everything they do is supported by the constitution. Warrentless wiretaps, going to war without declaring war, that sort of thing.

 

Oh, but even democrats believe going to war with a resolution - passed by congress - is the same thing as declaring war. Warrentless wiretaps though..I'm not sure I've heard that one explained. You may be right.

 

Impeachment IMO is too far, since he did not engage in an unconstitutional action. If he were to act in a way which aligned with his comment, then yes... probably impeachment worthy. However, merely saying it? No way. Too much "thought crime" issues, not to mention first amendment.

 

Fair enough. I'm not an activist so I can certainly be reasonable.

 

So any hint of socialism is against the constitution?

 

Uh oh, you must have replied to the wrong thread. This one is about elected officials that are sworn into office to uphold the constitution and then turn right around and say they don't care what it says. It's perfectly cool not to care what is says mind you - but not when caring about it is your freaking job. Sounds like a flop in career choice for Mr. Hare.

 

Does this mean you're unconcerned about Constitutional violations by the Republican party? Or are you arguing that Democrats like to violate the Constitution and Republicans don't?

 

Hmmm...does this statement I made in the OP sound like that up there?

 

And to be fair, it's not that republicans are off the hook, it's that republicans do what they do and actually believe the constitution supports them. So, they manage to escape blatant dismissal of our founding document.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me I'm saying that republicans are just as guilty, but of different charges. They don't get charged with "not caring what it says" - instead, they get charged with "delusionally believing it says what they say". And this thread is about "not caring what it says".

 

"Not caring what it says" is against their oath of upholding what it says. It's directly contradictory to their job. You can't even pretend or delude yourself into believing that's ok. Or at least I haven't met someone with that kind of talent yet.

 

In very simple terms. If your job is to...say, pick up trash...and you don't care about picking up trash...then, uh...that shouldn't be your job then...should it?

[padren]

"I don't care what's in the constitution, Income Tax is a legitimate means to fund public government"

 

"I don't care what's in the constitution, individuals should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons for personal self defense."

 

...

 

Would those statements be impeachment worthy? Do they even imply a violation of the Oath to upload the constitution? How many conservatives "Don't care about the constitution" when it comes to Roe V Wade? At least that issue got a ruling from the Supreme Court as to what the Constitution means as it applies to the reproductive rights of women - the disagreements over health care are far from tested.

 

Yet conservatives have proudly fought against the Constitution with regards to abortion, and tried to impede what is the Law of the Land and the most official interpretation of the Constitution our nation can provide by subverting those rights through every avenue possible including those that don't overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

 

 

On top of that he clearly states he feels "the pursuit of happiness" etc as written in the Constitution and affords room for this bill. I honestly think he doesn't care about "debating the Constitution with a hostile guy with a camera" since we do have a Supreme Court that will inevitably hear the matter and settle the argument.

[ParanoiA]

"I don't care what's in the constitution' date=' Income Tax is a legitimate means to fund public government"

 

"I don't care what's in the constitution, individuals should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons for personal self defense."[/quote']

 

Ah, yes, very good point. Those statements are not impeachment worthy in the least.

 

If I could hear this clip here at work, it would be nice to put it back together, so someone correct me if I'm wrong (as if that's a concern), but isn't his statement in reply to a charge by the cameraman that the healthcare bill was not constitutional? Or something to that effect?

 

If so, that's far more condeming than constitutional qualifiers prefixed to a simple opinion.

 

Yet conservatives have proudly fought against the Constitution with regards to abortion, and tried to impede what is the Law of the Land and the most official interpretation of the Constitution our nation can provide by subverting those rights through every avenue possible including those that don't overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

 

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of what the "other team" is doing...

 

Again...I'm talking about blatant statements in complete defiance to their oath. Like a law enforcement officer claiming "I don't care what the law says". Wouldn't you say he's in the wrong line of work then?

 

And isn't that so fundamental that to rationalize around it is practically a psychological experiment worthy of study? Aren't you the least bit fascinated by your own mind to reach for an excuse for that?

[swansont]

"I don't worry about the constitution on this" and, to the question of where in the Constitution does it say you can enact healthcare legislation: "I don't know"

 

IMO that's not the same as violating the oath to support and defend the constitution.

 

Congresspersons in the past have voted for measures that were unconstitutional — do we impeach them? What about every member who says they support school prayer or teaching creationism? That's unconstitutional, too. Yet it's things like that that get them elected in the first place

[padren]

Ah, yes, very good point. Those statements are not impeachment worthy in the least.

 

If I could hear this clip here at work, it would be nice to put it back together, so someone correct me if I'm wrong (as if that's a concern), but isn't his statement in reply to a charge by the cameraman that the healthcare bill was not constitutional? Or something to that effect?

 

If so, that's far more condeming than constitutional qualifiers prefixed to a simple opinion.

Yes, and there is genuinely a very bad way to interpret his comments. I think that honestly, he was he was unconcerned with what the Constitution says in how it could be interpreted with regards to health care and I think that is fair. What we expect our elected officials to consider constitutional is not directly based on what they read in the constitution. The document is far too subjective. What is constitutional is based on the long history of debate and supreme court rulings about the constitution.

 

When an elected official does personally find fault with conventional legal interpretation based on what they read in the Constitution itself, they then bring about challenges and whatnot, which is fair and even important to our Democracy. When an elected official sees no fault or conflict with a piece of legislation and the constitution, they shouldn't be worried about debating the "what the constitution says" with every hostile detractor. It will be the Supreme Court, not him, that engages in that debate.

 

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of what the "other team" is doing...

I didn't mean to push that as a "he's not so bad because the other guys are bad" false equivocation. I'm not a fan of the Buckley "If everyone is guilty of everything, then no one is guilty of anything" philosophy. I mentioned this instance because it's an example of how in practice, people fight for their beliefs and their interpretation of what is constitutional, regardless of the legal precedent.

It was more towards addressing the charge that the representative doesn't care about the Constitution because he supported the bill, alleged by the film maker, to address his "actions" aside from his words. I understand though that wasn't really what you were addressing.

Again...I'm talking about blatant statements in complete defiance to their oath. Like a law enforcement officer claiming "I don't care what the law says". Wouldn't you say he's in the wrong line of work then?

I think it ranges from a statement in bad taste in a moment of frustration to blatantly and knowingly criminal.

 

Case in point, if the officer is committing a crime and makes that statement when called on it, it is clear that the officer wasn't acting in ignorance, but was willfully breaking the law. If the officer is arresting a suspect that is claiming it is illegal by quoting an obscure and obviously irrelevant law, then "I don't care what the law says" is in a totally different context, albeit arguably unprofessional.

And isn't that so fundamental that to rationalize around it is practically a psychological experiment worthy of study? Aren't you the least bit fascinated by your own mind to reach for an excuse for that?

 

I am equally fascinated by the fact my first instinct was to jump on every bad quote Bush ever uttered as proof that he has no respect for this country, it's laws, and it's people. I tried to mitigate that with self reflection as much as possible while he was in office, but the temptation was obvious. To excuse or condemn through rationalization is definitely a worthy psychological experiment. I honestly think though a lot can be chalked up to differing perspectives. While I watched that video before his comments, he had my sympathy in that this was yet another loud and obnoxious guy trying to drag him into a constitutional debate over individually supporting a bill that seems ludicrous to call unconstitutional (unless income tax etc, also is), yet will inevitably be challenged in the supreme court. The fellow tried to drag him in by digging through the individual words in the Constitution without any regard for the long history of debate that has legally determined what is considered defacto Constitutional.

 

For him to say that at that moment, my thought was more "that was dumb, the guy has a camera" as opposed to "wow, he doesn't even pretend to care about the Constitution."

 

 

Now, if I felt this bill was unconstitutional, I was upset about it, I wasn't swallowing the (what I felt were) BS rationality of how they shoehorned it in to pass off as legal - his comment would totally set me off. I would be so far removed from his perspective to begin with that it would hit me as blatant disregard or even caring about our most fundamental laws.

 

I really think in politics, that's how we end up with such polarization and the subsequent savior/devil complexes around the political parties and their members.

[ParanoiA]

I honestly think though a lot can be chalked up to differing perspectives. While I watched that video before his comments' date=' he had my sympathy in that this was yet another loud and obnoxious guy trying to drag him into a constitutional debate over individually supporting a bill that seems ludicrous to call unconstitutional (unless income tax etc, also is), yet will inevitably be challenged in the supreme court. The fellow tried to drag him in by digging through the individual words in the Constitution without any regard for the long history of debate that has legally determined what is considered defacto Constitutional.

 

For him to say that at that moment, my thought was more "that was dumb, the guy has a camera" as opposed to "wow, he doesn't even pretend to care about the Constitution."[/quote']

 

Good post Padren. I do agree he seemed frustrated at fielding a "loud and obnoxious" interrogation that he's probably heard a hundred times before this encounter. However, I did interpret his statement as the latter case.

 

And I think it rubs against a curious philosophical perspective for democrats. On the whole, I don't get much from them that suggests an admiration for our constitution. And that's a valid position too. I've debated on the merits of that document before, and while I'm personally a bit offended by that position, I do recognize a legitimate case against it. For clarity's sake, I don't believe democrats despise it either - I just think they resent having to work around it so intently to do what they feel is the public good.

 

If I'm right, or maybe close, perhaps it's that curious conflict breaking the surface.

[bascule]

Hmmm...does this statement I made in the OP sound like that up there?

 

My bad...

 

That said do you care to opine on the issue of the fact that the actions of a single politician don't translate to the party as a whole?

 

Seems pretty obvious to me I'm saying that republicans are just as guilty, but of different charges. They don't get charged with "not caring what it says" - instead, they get charged with "delusionally believing it says what they say". And this thread is about "not caring what it says".

 

"Not caring what it says" is against their oath of upholding what it says. It's directly contradictory to their job. You can't even pretend or delude yourself into believing that's ok. Or at least I haven't met someone with that kind of talent yet.

 

Willfully violating the Constitution is worse than violating it out of ignorance? And how do you know they're not willfully violating it then claiming ignorance?

[ParanoiA]

"I don't worry about the constitution on this" and' date=' to the question of where in the Constitution does it say you can enact healthcare legislation: "I don't know"

 

IMO that's not the same as violating the oath to support and defend the constitution. [/quote']

 

I think within the context of the video it's obvious he went out of his way to declare that he didn't care what the constitution says on this bill. If you watch, he's having a conversation with some woman who is talking much louder, and they are already engaged - the cameraman comments with very low audio - almost under his breath "where is it in the constitution.." and it kind of trails off because he thinks Phil isn't listening to him. But Phil jumped on that question and completely redirected his attention to the cameraman. It's clear to me, he wanted to throw his disregard for it in the cameraman's face because he was fueled with "righteousness" of saving the precious children...again.

 

After he realized how stupid that was, he wanted the question again and then he shrugs and says "I don't know"...enter more appeals to precious children.

 

He doesn't know, and he doesn't care. That is what he said. It is his job to both, know and care, about the constitution. That is absolutely his job.

 

It was not an innocent qualifier to an opinion.

 

If a republican said this in response to the warrantless wiretapping during the GWB administration, this forum would be lit up with objections.

 

Congresspersons in the past have voted for measures that were unconstitutional — do we impeach them? What about every member who says they support school prayer or teaching creationism? That's unconstitutional, too. Yet it's things like that that get them elected in the first place

 

Yeah...I don't know why I have to keep saying this...again, this thread isn't about pointing fingers at unconstitutional lawmaking - that's subjective.

 

This thread is about glorious self incrimination by one's own mouth. Got any examples of lawmakers saying they don't care about what they're paid to care about? It's just obvious. If your job is to take care of kids and you don't care about kids...uh, you shouldn't be taking care of kids. Right?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That said do you care to opine on the issue of the fact that the actions of a single politician don't translate to the party as a whole?

 

Of course, that would be the association fallacy. I included that it "helps" validate suspicions from constitutional admirers like myself. A bit of a wiggle word, I'll admit, but I was trying to speak about perception. For instance, Rush Limbaugh could be said to validate prejudices. That's a statement about the perception listeners might have - it's not a bubbly statement about how correct Rush is about prejudices.

 

Right now, that video serves to validate the suspicions I, and other constitutional types, have about the democratic party.

 

Willfully violating the Constitution is worse than violating it out of ignorance? And how do you know they're not willfully violating it then claiming ignorance?

 

Shit man, I don't know which is worse - but you're not really trying to make excuses for willfully violating the constitution are you?

 

Both parties are guilty of doing it out of ignorance. The healthcare bill is one, and warrantless wiretaps another. But that's still pretty subjective stuff. To prosecute such a thing is exactly how to bring down the empire. People are free to be ignorant, including lawmakers. But they aren't free to knowingly break the law, including lawmakers. No matter which is worse.

[padren]

For clarity's sake, I don't believe democrats despise it either - I just think they resent having to work around it so intently to do what they feel is the public good.

 

If I'm right, or maybe close, perhaps it's that curious conflict breaking the surface.

 

I think there could be some truth to a number of democrats secretly taking the stance of "For the love of God, this was written back when slavery was acceptable, why are we stuck 200 years later with gun nuts over a single piece of paper?" with regards to that document. It's an interesting question and the honest truth is it is just a piece of paper with a bunch of ideas written on it that appears to have served us well, but has no magical properties to ensure it remains the most valid foundation for the basis of our laws. It's understandable that human beings may every well they are modern and smart and that document is old and dumb when it comes to guiding some new legislation. The thing that I personally respect the most about the constitution is that it is designed specifically to protect this country from short-sighted people who do think that way. Most of those people probably even admit it does this, but just that it doesn't apply to them. (Such as presidents supporting limiting executive power in general, but since not all presidents are as careful as they are.)

While the document does a great job in this role, it may very well fail in some capacities since it isn't magical in any way.

 

But to get back to what you were saying about the democrats specifically encountering this issue, I don't think that's entirely fair. I think all politicians do, and the wiretapping and torture memos go a long way to anyone in power who thinks their plan is the best, will feel wrongly impeded by the constitution when it offers resistance. The substance of the democrat platform as it applies to enlarged public (read, mandatory) programs may result in their domestic strategies colliding in this regard more than republicans, but republicans still do just as much in overall policy.

 

That said, even though the Constitution is not infallible and not magically protected from leading us astray, I do find it a remarkable document and the best tool I can imagine us having at the moment, and don't really see a need to find a replacement.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just so folks know, he didn't say he didn't care about the constitution, he said he didn't worry about it. I don't worry about the law, not most of the time anyways, but I do care quite a bit about it. I don't worry about whether there will be food for me tomorrow, or whether I will die tomorrow. Not worrying about something important is not really a problem, and in fact is frequently a good thing. Of course then the big dummy started talking about what he does care about, making it seem like in contrast he doesn't care about the constitution. Whether that is accurate, I don't know. Even if it is accurate, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

What is bad is how very ineloquent he was, and also that he appeared to be ignorant and a liar. Like the reporter said, I think he should start looking for a new job.

[bascule]

Shit man, I don't know which is worse - but you're not really trying to make excuses for willfully violating the constitution are you?

 

No, but let me put it this way:

 

The Republicans brought us warrantless wiretapping and retroactive telco immunity. These things kick me in my proverbial libertarian ballsack. Telco immunity isn't a bad thing so much because I want the telcos punished as I want a Supreme Court case which rules on this sort of crap. It is not kosher for the telcos to just dump immense amounts of telecom traffic into government servers without a warrant.

 

Obama has continued this policy. That's bad. But at least Congress has amended FISA since then so what he's doing isn't outright illegal per federal law (even if it violates the fourth amendment, spiritually if nothing else). What Bush was doing violated both federal law and the Constitution, and he was the one who created the program. Bush had his name all over a program which violated not just the spirit of the fourth amendment but was directly in violation of federal law. And he has not been punished. I personally find that infuriating. Bush should be in jail.

 

Being forced to buy healthcare? I don't see where in the Constitution the federal government is granted that power. It's stupid, but it's not an invasion of privacy, which is what the Republicans have been doing.

 

All in all I find the Republicans, particularly the neocon contingent, far more authoritarian and completely willing to trample on our constitutional rights to privacy than anything the Democrats have done. Whether or not they claim ignorance is irrelevant to me. In my mind what they're doing is wrong.

[swansont]

Yeah...I don't know why I have to keep saying this...again, this thread isn't about pointing fingers at unconstitutional lawmaking - that's subjective.

 

Maybe because you declared this to be an open and shut case, and people can think of many blatantly unconstitutional acts that have gone unpunished. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. Hare didn't say "I don't care about the constitution;" that was the cameraman. Hare said he didn't worry about that, which could be for any number of reasons, not the least of which could be that he had already been assured that it was constitutional, even if he was unaware of the specific arguments. We don't know.

[ParanoiA]

Maybe because you declared this to be an open and shut case, and people can think of many blatantly unconstitutional acts that have gone unpunished. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. Hare didn't say "I don't care about the constitution;" that was the cameraman. Hare said he didn't worry about that, which could be for any number of reasons, not the least of which could be that he had already been assured that it was constitutional, even if he was unaware of the specific arguments. We don't know.

 

I realize raking a democrat over the coals for doing something you support is tough to take without pointing out "the other guy". I don't believe for a minute it's because I called it an "open and shut case". That's externalizing your error. The thread was clear, my post was clear, but it invokes the partisan competition psychology and you're only human. No offense.

 

Seriously. Look at the threads created here about those damn republicans and the tea party. There's a lot of time spent fielding partisan team logic in all of them. I fully expected it here too, even though I acted surprised.

 

To your other point, we do know because he followed up with: "I don't know". So he doesn't worry about the constitution, and he doesn't know. And there have been some good examples in this thread demonstrating how innocuous those phrases could be - and this doesn't match any of them. Keeping within context, he clearly doesn't worry about the constitution nor doesn't know if it's allowed, and clearly doesn't care.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

All in all I find the Republicans, particularly the neocon contingent, far more authoritarian and completely willing to trample on our constitutional rights to privacy than anything the Democrats have done. Whether or not they claim ignorance is irrelevant to me. In my mind what they're doing is wrong.

 

I agree, but I've seen no evidence to make it impeachment worthy. Same with the healthcare bill. We've had this discussion before, on GWB, and how political prosecution poisons and arrests government.

 

Like it or not, violations of sworn oath is more a matter of intent than outcome. If someone truly believes they are acting in the spirit of the constitution, then I don't see how you can prosecute with a clear conscience. That person's intent matches that of a constitutional intent. They are the same. One is merely wrong in the eyes of the supreme court, or the people.

 

People, even lawmakers, legally deserve the right to be wrong. No one should be held to a standard that mandates perfection to avoid prosecution. If that were the case, the republicans would be seeking charges against every legislator that voted for that bill.

[Mr Skeptic]

Keeping within context, he clearly doesn't worry about the constitution nor doesn't know if it's allowed, and clearly doesn't care.

 

Yeah, the context for this is really nasty. Our politicians should really handle themselves much better than this even under extreme stress. He really should have kept his mouth shut.

 

I don't think, however, that he could be impeached based on what he said.

 

Like it or not, violations of sworn oath is more a matter of intent than outcome. If someone truly believes they are acting in the spirit of the constitution, then I don't see how you can prosecute with a clear conscience. That person's intent matches that of a constitutional intent. They are the same. One is merely wrong in the eyes of the supreme court, or the people.

 

I think what matters more than intent is a reasonable chance of having violated the rule unknowingly despite best efforts. Simply not knowing is far from good enough. The intent must include both intent to understand, and intent to comply. This means that violations are criminal if it is a clear violation, regardless of intent.

 

People, even lawmakers, legally deserve the right to be wrong. No one should be held to a standard that mandates perfection to avoid prosecution. If that were the case, the republicans would be seeking charges against every legislator that voted for that bill.

 

But the rule is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Given that we normal folks aren't allowed to be ignorant of the law, despite it being utterly impossible to read and remember the entirety of the law even in our whole lifetimes, I really don't have much sympathy when the folks who made this rule turn around and claim ignorance.

[Sisyphus]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. However, it is also not itself a crime, nor is apathy. Nor, for that matter, is breaking an oath.

[swansont]

I realize raking a democrat over the coals for doing something you support is tough to take without pointing out "the other guy". I don't believe for a minute it's because I called it an "open and shut case". That's externalizing your error. The thread was clear, my post was clear, but it invokes the partisan competition psychology and you're only human. No offense.

 

Seriously. Look at the threads created here about those damn republicans and the tea party. There's a lot of time spent fielding partisan team logic in all of them. I fully expected it here too, even though I acted surprised.

 

To your other point, we do know because he followed up with: "I don't know". So he doesn't worry about the constitution, and he doesn't know. And there have been some good examples in this thread demonstrating how innocuous those phrases could be - and this doesn't match any of them. Keeping within context, he clearly doesn't worry about the constitution nor doesn't know if it's allowed, and clearly doesn't care.

 

 

No, you're leaping to conclusions based on … I don't know. Your desire for him to be in the wrong? It happens a lot. You're only human. No offense.

 

You don't get to decide if your post was clear. That's up to the people that read it. That's the problem with interpretation. All you can do is clarify your position. Ironically though, this thread deals with interpreting what Phil Hare meant, and we see that there are multiple interpretations. Interpretation is usually not very cut-and-dried.

 

I'm not sure where I ever actually came out in support of the healthcare bill, only that I have shot down incorrect information that was presented. And I'm doing that here, too: he didn't say what you claim he said. You have interpreted his statement as meaning something, and I have presented an alternative. One does not have to be a constitutional scholar in order to hold office. One could get advice on the constitutionality of a bill from some other source, and under that situation, one might not care about the details of the constitutionality, nor worry about it, because you're covered. You also wouldn't need to know exactly what the precedents are that would lead one to believe an action was constitutional. Or you might just be tired of baiting from some dickhead who has already made up his mind and you don't really want to go into it, so you say, "I don't know," and get up and leave.

 

Politics is rife with people that hate the "other side" and make up (or blow up out of proportion) reasons to justify that feeling. Happens all the time. Lately it's things like calling Obama a socialist. Similar things happened with Bush, too. Nothing new.

[Pangloss]

Politics is rife with people that hate the "other side" and make up (or blow up out of proportion) reasons to justify that feeling. Happens all the time. Lately it's things like calling Obama a socialist. Similar things happened with Bush, too. Nothing new.

 

I agree with this.

 

I've no problem with holding this guy to his oath, though. By all means, remember what he said and consider it at the ballot box (what jryan said in post #2).

[ParanoiA]

No, you're leaping to conclusions based on … I don't know. Your desire for him to be in the wrong? It happens a lot. You're only human. No offense.

 

Offense taken, I do not appreciate being called a human.

 

I'm not leaping to conclusions, I'm drawing one by considering the context. As an unashamed advocate for personal liberty and Constitutional reverance, I am absolutely astounded by an elected official, who's very job it is to uphold and defend the constitution, shrugging off constitutional questions.

 

Interpret how you want. I've defended plenty of democrats in my time, including the latest Obama-is-sorry-we're-a-super-power nonsense, and this legislator is guilty of not giving a crap what he is paid to give a crap for - that's my interpretation.

 

You don't get to decide if your post was clear. That's up to the people that read it. That's the problem with interpretation. All you can do is clarify your position. Ironically though, this thread deals with interpreting what Phil Hare meant, and we see that there are multiple interpretations. Interpretation is usually not very cut-and-dried.

 

I absolutely get to decide if I think my post was clear. And I think you are externalizing your problem with interpreting my OP.

 

The notion that my stating it was an "open and shut case" that caused you to not understand the point of this thread, is reaching...to put it kindly. The "Open and shut" phrase doesn't have magical properties that make people not understand concepts.

 

Remember, that was your excuse for bringing up unconsitutional law making as a comparison to self incrimination and vocal repudiation of one's very charge.

 

Tell me again, what exactly is so misleading about my OP that I "caused" your error?