George Will's Constitutional Challenge To Liberal Panelists: "Can Congress Require Obese People To Sign Up For Weight Watchers?"

The liberal panelists answer that they "don't know" the answer to George Will's question. It's good to know that they have a working Constitutional methodology, clearly evident from the erudite and scholarly response to the most simple questions that is "I don't know."

While saying he does not know, the panelist Richard Stengel, who is an editor at Time Magazine, explained that "it's unconstitutional if the Supreme Court decides that it is unconstitutional." So this theory openly states that the Constitution has absolutely no meaning other than that which can arbitrarily be attached to it on an "unknowable" basis by nine robed lawyers. This is absolutely and self-evidently asinine. Only liberal panelists with their apparently meaningless journalistic or academic credentials behind them could believe such inherent stupidities about the Constitution. If something is unconstitutional only if the Supreme Court says so, that begs the question: On what basis does or should the Supreme Court say something is unconstitutional? Like the Supreme Court Justices will have to do when it comes to Obamacare, answer the damn question instead of deferring to robed overlords with the answer "I don't know." If you have no idea how to answer that question, please excuse yourself from a panel that is discussing Congressional mandates and the Constitution on national television. Or better yet, do us all a favor and refuse the next opportunity to spout off about matters of which you maintain self-proclaimed ignorance.

Further, for some reason I suspect that when the Supreme Court rules in a more conservative direction, this Time Magazine editor's attitude is no longer that what is constitutional is whatever the Supreme Court claims is constitutional. Only when it comes to Obamacare does he take this approach. The reason is because his response is nothing more than a very thin and transparent veneer for the true agenda: big federal government, federal government without limits, federal government that is not bound by any enumeration of powers as set forth by the Constitution. The Constitution is of no concern to the liberal talking heads, it takes a second seat behind unlimited powers required for the big government agenda and before the altar of the liberal agenda must it kneel. That is evident from this exchange.

The other panelist Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University goes even further when pressed by George Will and says that if "Congress decides they will" force people to go to Weight Watchers, "they will have the power to do so." What the hell is the point of a Constitution to these people? If it is not in place to limit the powers of government, then for what purpose is it needed at all? And to say that Congress has all the power to decide what is within its power to legislate is to say that the Constitution serves no purpose. Neither Congress nor this country would need a Constitution if Congressional powers were just limited by what Congress decided to enact into law.

In truth, they know all too well that the implication of the Obamacare mandate is a federal government of unlimited police powers, and therefore would simply rather plead ignorance by answering "I don't know" rather than admit outright that they do not believe in any constitutional limitation on the powers of the federal government. A more honest answer than "I don't know" would have been "I plead the Fifth."
Tweet