I don’t know about you but when I consider the Supreme Court’s review of “ObamaCare,” Sarah Palin is probably the last person I’d call on for analysis of the matter. But Palin’s BFF, Greta Van Susteren – who is a lawyer – nevertheless trotted her out last night to offer her thoughts on the issue. Palin also suggested that she understands the Constitution better than President Obama.
Palin, wearing a blaring red, white and blue necklace, didn’t let a little thing like not being a lawyer stop her from declaring the law unconstitutional. Nor did the fact that as far as anyone can tell she has no expertise in medicine nor health care delivery prevent her from announcing that what’s really needed is “a more market-based, patient-centered solution to the challenges.” Van Susteren accepted Palin’s “insights” as if they had weight.
Then Palin went on to attack Obama:
“It is very important that voters stay focused on the fact that if it is deemed unconstitutional that President Obama, who claims to be some constitutional scholar, would try to cram down Americans’ throat this idea that big, centralized government would be able to usurp, not only the will of the people but constitutional, enumerated limited powers of federal government.” She also opined that states have “more flexibility than the federal government, when you consider what the enumerated powers are in our Constitution.”
Palin also announced that health care will “erode that foundation of liberty and free choices.”
I tweeted her last night,
.@SarahPalinUSA Why don't you go for a year without health insurance before you lecture anyone else about the "freedom" of not having it.
Feel free to retweet, 23 others already have.
She must’ve just transferred . . .
And what the hell is up with that ridiculous necklace?!
Here’s the text that mentions “enumerated limits powers” (actually those words DO NOT EXIST as such):
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(That’s where “enumerated” comes up. ALL other uses of that word—whether as a noun, verb or adjective—refer to CENSUS, and an indirect reference to taxation.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(This is a slightly tricky one, but note the KEY clauses “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” AND “nor prohibited by it to the States.” As Article I, Section 8 CLEARLY notes, Congress has the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Since Congress DID pass a bill that would “provide for the general Welfare”—a power that IS within Congressional purview—it becomes a bit tricky to say that the program is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Even more, there’s the fact that the states—prior to the passage of the program—did NOT do anything that could reasonably* be construed as “prohibiting” the United States, through the Congress, to enact this program.)
But the Quitta from Wasilla can’t be bothered to do any sort of CRITICAL thinking on any topic. She simply spits out whatever comments happen to emanate from those two neurons that (barely) function as her cerebrum.
Yeah . . . ‘cause it’s always great to have Palin — who attended five different colleges before obtaining her degree, in communications — giving her expertise on constitutional law . . .
No? No surprise there.