Just Say Commerce Clause!!

W...T...F!?

Let's be clear on a couple of preliminary things: 1) The guy holding the camera is clearly being a douche; 2) The comment about "Not being worried about the Constitution" is pretty bad even if it's taken out of context, and even if he meant he's not worried whether this bill violates the Constitution (2 things which I will explain are plainly not true, by the way); and 3) The "not worried" comment is really not the point here, it's a later exchange that should be causing the stir and, quite frankly, the outrage:

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

Of course everyone is focused on the "don't care about the constitution" comment, including Fox News folks like Bill O'Reilly who (it would be ironic if he had a shred of intellectual integrity) once said almost exactly the same thing. That's because it's easier to say This guy doesn't care about the Constitution!! then to say This guy's unfamiliar with the appropriate Constitutional Authorities!!! I don't doubt that Phil Hare (and Bill O'Reilly for that matter) care about the Constitution, but I don't think Phil Hare cares enough, or has enough concern about what his role is within the structure it provides.

The simple and undeniable fact is that any and every Congressman who has voted for a bill should be able to immediately name the Constitutional authority that allows such a bill to be written, let alone passed in either house of Congress. And, every member of congress should, as a force of habit, have determined such authority prior to voting for the bill, and really should be constantly asking himself the question as to where the authority lies while reading the bill (three times).

Mr. Hare's answer to the question about Constitutional authority raises a legitimate new question about whether or not he truly does care about the Document. And it certainly puts the lie to his defense that this comment was out of context and intended to mean he did not worry because he was confident the bill was Constitutional. First, the context seems pretty clear, and from his tone, Mr. Hare seems to be rejecting as quaint or formal the notion that the Constitution should restrain Congress from passing helpful laws. Second, it is simply impossible to be both convinced of the Constitutionality of a bill and not know what piece of the Constitution authorizes its passage. So the second piece of his defense is an absolute and blatant lie.

But this all falls under a broader issue:the fact that our politicians, and thereby our society, seems to exist in a total state of law-optionality, or selective or situational Constitutionalism. Phil Hare was a rather vocal critic of George Bush and I know from seeing him appear on TV that he opposed at least some of Bush's policies on legal or Constitutional grounds. If there is fairness in this world, going forward, Phil Hare will be essentially precluded from ever citing the Constitution to support any of his arguments or ideas, because, he should be well aware, the journalist or conservative talking head across the table will immediately point out his stated lack of concern for that same Document. If he's lucky, Mr. Hare will get a to a point where such a retort seems like a cheap shot, but they never will be. Mr. Hare, you can not disregard the Constitution and your duties within it in your haste to pass a bill you like and think is great, only to turn around and say that the Constitution must be adhered to when it suits your needs.

It goes almost without saying that the conservatives making tons of hey out of Mr. Hare's stupidity don't come across much better considering how little they cared about the Constitution when adherents to their ideology were violating it.

Still Phil Hare might look worse because really, how fucking hard is it to just say "Commerce Clause?"