Democrat Phil Hare: “The Constitution Doesn’t Matter to Me”

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by delusianne

FOXNews.com - Congressman Defends His 'Constitution' Comments on Health Care Law

An Illinois congressman who ignited a firestorm of controversy this week for telling a town hall audience he's "not worried about the Constitution" on the new health care law said his comments were "taken completely out of context."
***
Hare was immediately battered by criticism in the blogosphere for appearing to flout the Constitution and for confusing it with the Declaration of Independence.

Hare responded to the controversy with his own YouTube video Friday in which he said he meant that he wasn't worried the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

"If it had of [sic!!!!!!!] been, I would have never voted for a bill that I knew would be unconstitutional," he said. "I took an oath to defend this Constitution. I will continue to do that. I served six years in the military. I'm saddened that this gotcha-type politics has to happen."

Sure he's an inarticulate ass, but that doesnt make it right to take his words out of context -- lying, essentially.

You are using his claims of "explaining" his comments after the fact as evidence.

Here is the thing, people speak the truth when placed on the spot (why do you think that lawyers use a pressured approach in examination?), when cornered. He was caught on the spot. His emotional appeal was not working, he was frustrated that people were not accepting his fallacious arguments as complete truth. So when the mention of the constitution came up, his true nature reacted before his controlled political motives could catch it. That is, he spoke his true opinion.

As he said, he is not concerned with the constitution. he is concerned with the "people". I don't deny that one bit. I honestly think he is so emotionally involved in his position, that he could care less about the constitution as he said and is fully committed to his ideal of what is best for the people.

Madison specifically talked about this attachment concerning a republic. He said that the issues were of representation being too large, resulted in too close of an attachment to those they represented. If too small, there would be an distance and lack of understanding of those represented. In this case, as Madison discussed, there would also be the issue of corruption of the officials who did not share any concern for those they represented other than the concerns they deemed worthy of such. That is, the representatives became rulers over their people, assessing what they believed was of importance, at the cost of the voice of the people and with disregard of the very liberties they held.

He was not taken out of context, he was caught in his natural form, in context, and truly what he is. A person who believes that his emotional convictions trump any concern for that of the Constitutions protections.

His position is no different than that of Obama's who thinks the Constitution is a road block to his belief to that which would be good for the people. They are no different than Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Why? Because they also disregarded the very aspects of individual free will to serve their opinion as to what would be best for the people.

This man is a disgrace to every aspect to which our country stands.

You can spin it all you like, but like a skunk, the smell can't simply be washed off with water.

[pommysmommy]

Phil Hare said he didn't care about the Constitution in spite of the fact that he swore to uphold the Constitution. Illinois needs to save face and remove this moron from office.