The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, least it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Under no circumstances does this beast belong on the High Court & certainly not as nominated by The Usurper
"courts would be wrong to strike down the lists that they think uh uh, duh , duh huh, that are senseless because they think they are senseless" ..LOL... what a small mind she has. Hey Kagan I agree with you 100%. Let's completely neglect the instincts of common sense in our courts and continue to legislate on the premise of auto pilot where the destination is clearly nowhere because thats exactly where your "rationale" is.
She's NEVER even been a judge and she's worked for GOLDMAN SACHS. Checkout her clip saying the government should be allowed to to ban books. She IS the sign of the times.
I have more experience in the military than Ms. K has in the legal field. Why have I not been nominated for Director of Homeland Security??? My active duty service time was 2.5 years. I also would not "try" to uphold the law nor "try" to be unbiased regarding my work. I would continue to act based on the oath I swore to prior to my nomination. I WOULD uphold the law and WOULD not have a bias-DISGUSTING!!!
The Commerce Clause was from abuse under the Articles of Confederation, by States that did heavy duties on imports--and passing through--trade, evidence by 11th Amendment. The Commerce Clause is broadly interpreted and reduce the Bill of Rights beyond trade into their own Supreme law, also seen free speech restriction by personal obscene values (Lady Chatterley's Lover); it empowers Congress to say anything passing between States is Federal law, but abuse is to regulate the People themselves.
Her track record clearly shows she places her ideology over the law.
Under Clinton, she MODIFIED the opinion of the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from there being virtually no instance in which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life to say that partial-birth abortion may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. That is LYING
@1musicwayne I really do not care about whether a candidate has "judicial experience". The real question is; What is the candidate's judicial philosophy and will she/he be faithful to the Constitution?
I really dont understand how extensive legal research, teaching, and publishing is any less useful to interpreting the constitution than actually being a judge. For instance, I've never been to law school, I've never been a judge, but I understand Tom Coburn's question entirely.
Throughout her career, Kagan has placed her politics above the law.
She has never been a judge, never tried a case before a jury and has practiced law for only three years. She is the least experienced nominee in the last half-century. This is just one of the many terrible decisions Obama has made as President.
How can she just get away with not answering this question and still get appointed? She should have been kicked out on the spot when she couldn't answer this simple question.
The Government has no power to tell Americans what to eat. It does however have the power to advise on what may be considered a legally available food product from a food safety viewpoint. that should have been her answer.
He is not asking whether his vegetable law is a good law, nor is he asking if his vegetable law violates the constitution. He's asking if it violates the commerce clause. By framing it so narrowly, he can make it seem like she's answering a question that she isn't (i.e., it's a loaded question). He knows this, and interrupts her before she can say anything about judicial interpretation.
@gorbonic "i guess the question i'm asking is: do we have the power to tell people what to eat everyday". he's asking her whether there are any limits to to the power of govt. she, unable to answer a very simple question, revealed herself.
KAGAN "Courts would be wrong to strike down dumb laws" ??? that is a senseless statement ! Maybe that's why our country is going to ruins by these senseless laws that they approved!!! ACTUALLY YOU ARE SENSELESS KAGAN !!! The only reason that she is being promoted is because OBAMA IS HER HERO~~~
SHE doesn't care about the constitution, she will vote according to OBAMA.... BECAUSE THAT'S HER HERO........
Food redistribution might conflict with her speech redistribution plan: The 99% rabble might say something different, and it is inconvenient, they heard that somewhere, might be a sin.
I can't believe that she can't answer to a question" Can we tell the people what they have to eat? " He studded and thought about what to say........ that is because she believes that the government CAN tell the people what to eat.....
Its a simple question and the answer is NO.....
This is what she believes::: NO GUNS, CONTROL OF FOOD, CONSTITUTION IS DEAD, CONTROL OF PURCHASING, FORCEFUL VACCINATIONS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS THE ANSWER AND OBAMA IS GOD,
Everyone contact their Senators NOW, and let them know how much of an injustice it would be to the American people to have this person on the Supreme Court !!!
Does anyone know what would happen if we all just flat-out refused to buy health insurance or pay the penalties/taxes for it? Would we all go to already over-crowded jails, or what?
Wow, I can't believe these comments I'm reading here. I mean, what the man is saying is simply common sense. The government has no right to control what people eat, and one would think every American would agree. Obviously, some people just look for a way to disagree for the sake of it, or there are a lot of people here who are just wacked out.
A "Dumb law" or Senseless law is not the question. That was a diversion. She then proceeds to attack the straw-man argument she just created instead of answering the question. Why? She's not stupid. She knows the "Senseless Law" was mirroring Obamacare. She was trying to conceal how she plans (in advance, so much for impartiality) to vote in favor of requiring all Americans to engage in commerce directed by the government.
She didn't decline anything. She didn't get a chance to answer. But at the same time, that was a loaded question. And this title is Right Wing propaganda!!
We should be feeding the poor and starving 50 percent of the world instead of stuffing our faces with food every available second. The government needs to place emphasis on intelligence and free thinking outside of the cultural bubble, but that will never happen. So were stuck with this problem until people wake up from the american dreams handed down by television and other forms of media.
I encourage people to look up the entirety of this transaction. Don't you find the spot where it cut of to be a little suspicious? Immediately after this, Kagan tells exactly why Congress CAN'T tell you what to eat. People, please look for the facts yourself.
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
How is this so hard for the Supreme court to understand? Congress has no power to mandate eating fruits and vegetables from the interstate commerce clause. Simple
The lifetime position is just too important to comfirm someone with no experience on the bench. Just because I've had surgery does not qualify me to perform surgery on others!
I'm a liberal, but I'm in total agreement with Senator Coburn, atleast on the issue of food. Forbidding Americans from eating fatty foods might cut obesity and obesity-related deaths, but it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, cigarettes and alcohol will be prohibited too. Would that save lives? Sure, but it doesn't make it constitutional.
What a joke our representative government has become. can't wait for Nov and 2012 to throw all of them out. As far as Kagan, thank god there will be 8 others to cancel out her radical agenda. I almost threw up after watching her in this video.
DEMOCRAT FEMALE KAGAN IS SMARTER THEN REPUBLICAN MEN, WOW,I SEE HOW THEY ASK HER QUESTIONS, CAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID THEY RUIN ECONOMY AFTER 9/11, AND NOW THEY HAVE NOTHING PRODUCTIVE TO DO, SO THEY ASK HER STUPID QUESTIONS,DUE TO 9/11 ECONOMY COLAPSED ITS ALL REPUBLICANS FAULT ,BUSH DIDNT GET ALONG WITH SAUDIS WHO CANT SPELL THEIR NAMES/ KAGAN SHOULD ASK REPUBLICANS QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11. WHY REPUBLICANS ASK HER QUESTIONS? ECONOMY COLAPSED DUE TO 9/11!GOD BLESS HER PARENTS! GOD BLESS USA!
If you support a law to prevent the Gov from forcing ME!...
To stop on red lights when I am driving it would greatly increase my freedoms. Why cant I have the freedoms to do what I want? Anyway, you will have my vote if I can drive around like a crazy, I mean freedom loving free man. Less Gov regulation and more crazy Republican talk about how the Gov is going to force you to clean your room and eat your vegetables.
@Nauckauha I don't need to ask her a thing, especially about a day in the life of a beaurocrat from 15 years ago. I actually don't even know what point you are trying to make. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting the continuation of anti-drug policies by people who don't want to be told what they can eat. Is Kagan worthy of the Supreme Court? Darn right she is if Alito and Roberts were worthy. Does she have judicial experience? Nope, but that's not a unique circumstance. Move on.
Does this mean that my Republican friends that are commenting here would be willing to end the DEA since the commerce clause can't be used to regulate the consumption of something that is bad for you? If the government has the right to ban narcotics, doesn't it also have the right to ban transfats, or force people to eat vegetables? If you are willing to tell others what they can do for recreational entertainment for the good of the country, you have to accept others forcing you to eat spinach
Perhaps you are realizing that it's a horrible abuse of liberty in both instances. Or is it ok just because the 'other' guys did something similar? It's wrong on both counts, banning personal consumption or transfats.
@hempec The FACT is that the Constitution gives the PEOPLE of America to do absolutely ANYTHING they want withing certain parameter. The Preamble to the Constituion give FULL authority for healthcare reform. Furthermore if enough people want it they can CHANGE or ELIMINATE any part of the Constitution through the Amendment process just like they did for universal suffrage and outlawing slavery. This includes ANY of the first ten or any other part of the Constitution.
@hempec Last time I checks spinach didn't make you OD or neglect taking care of your children! Now I would agree pot is in the same category as drinking but blow, X, drugs of that nature are vary bad and should be banned!
@21centurynostradamus lmfao like G.W. was a vote for common sense. get over the BS party crap. kill the fed res bank and hang all treasonous politicians allowing the rape of our ppl and land for thier pockets.
i highly doubt that. the democrats are screwing up the country right now with Obama as president, making the debt soar more than any other time in the recent history. He just doesn't know when to stop spending tax payer money. He is also terribly negative in his personality. He is always complaining about how horrible everything is and blaming everyone but himself for the crumbling of our great nation into pieces. And without Republicans, we would be a socialist nation.
she could not answer because she knows what obamacare has in store. alreagy gov't mandates that you can't eat transfats in some states. why is it so absurd to think they will MANDATE healthy eating then tax and penalize those that don't? it's a natural extension of liberal thinking. the gvmt must make you do things FOR YOUR OWN GOOD from birth to death. she didn't answer that simple question because she knows what's coming.
gov't already mandates what we can't eat (transfats in some jurisdictions) so why is it so absurd that gov't will tell us what we MUST EAT "for our own good" ? do it or get fined , pay higher taxes (health INS premiums etc). obamacare is coming that's why she didn't answer... she knows what's coming and didn't want to trap herself later
Why is this a big deal? The gov't doesnt have the right enforce what we eat everyday and it isnt possible to enforce such a stupid law. Does it have the power? Maybe
Fig, u are wrong. They will not show up at the diner table and tell you what to eat or not. The liberals want to tax it off your table. Before you have a chance to buy it. They are already doing this in several cities. Look it up!!!
The question is; Can the gubmint force a US citizen to buy a product. If its healthcare then why not a car or a mule. Oilbama is destroying this country.
This really is a stupid question. If she says that yes, the Supreme Court can nullify stupid laws, then she is painted as an activist. If she says no, then she is painted as socialist.
She answered correctly. It is the legislature's job to create laws. The supreme court does not judge the intelligence of a law, only its constitutionality.
@lsleeter You think people without insurance get free care when they go to the emergency room? Are you aware that those people are billed for the services they receive? I do not have health insurance (cannot afford it). I cut my arm very badly last summer and had to get stitches. I spent the next year paying off a $1200 medical bill. Had I not paid it, the hospital would sell the debt to a collections agency, losing little money on what was already a lucrative deal for them.
The government does not have the right to take our freedoms or to usurp the Constitution. If you do not think they could come into your home or life to do so, just remember Germany. The more laws made, the less freedom we have. Only we can stop this, politicians will not.
To me this question is stupid as hell. The Supreme Court is the same place that ruled Dred Scott a freed black man could not be free in MO becuz it was a slave state and because he was technically property. I def don't put any faith in this crockpot judicial system.
This whole hearing has been one retarted question after another. There is a reason why congress has only a 20% approval rating, and this isn't helping.
All these people talking about libs and obama still don't get republicans are the same they both play for the same team Obama and Sarah palin both play for the same team
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MANDATE COMMERCE. That is the point, and once they believe that they have that right, where does it end? She believes that the government is an end unto itself. This is government gone wild.
Funny how the same ones who shout "my body, my choice" when it comes to murdering the unborn will not afford that same choice when it comes to what we choose to eat. Food Nazi's, you can have my Big Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
@lsleeter ........ of wealth. instead of protecting your liberty they are destroying personal liberty in the name of social welfare. group "A" can't afford their hospital bill so the government forces everyone to buy Insurance & group "B" will pay for it. not only taking away money from group B but also liberty
@lsleeter Nope, you still don't get it."the government should not tell you what to do in your life" as long as your not infringing on someones rights or property. "until it starts affecting others" is a problem because the effect you are referring to (subsidized hospital bill) was caused by government regulation. "Millions not having health care does affect me" again, only because of government involvement. the problem is Government should not be involved with subsidies or redistribution......
@lsleeter Your argument is disingenuous at best. Liberals don't mind making conservatives pay for the health care and other programs for illegal immigrants. This is just another socialist power grab.
@lsleeter Insurance is a scheme, a legalized shceme but a schemejust the same. Insurance doesn't spread risk, it spreads costs which is why goods and services covered costs so much. You dip spit libs have empowered the very insurance companies you know are the problem to begin with.
The government has the power to federally enforce a dietary overhaul on all citizens. Sugar is murdering more people in the 1st world than all diseases account for killing in the 3rd world. Any jar of baby food has a 3 to 1 ratio of sugar to protein. Newsflash, we aren't maggots, so why are our children being fed poison to keep them weak? A 3 to 1 sugar to protein ratio is a poor medium to nurture a developing mammalian body.
how about instead of them forcing us to eat better, make selling food that kills people illegal, no matter how profitable it is because half this country is fat bumpkin idiots.
Government has the RIGHT to tell people what to eat. It's part of the 1st Amendment. But government has no power to ENFORCE what Americans eat. And if you are seriously worried about some government official showing up at your dinner table and telling you what you can and cannot it - then I suggest seeking therapy.
@Fig1024 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" --1st Amendment
@Fig1024 Way to straw man the position.... No cops aren't going to raid your house for eating certain foods, but what he is inferring rather that bans will be placed on unhealthy food so you can't go to the supermarket and buy the food you like. Please be reasonable when saying things, and not to exaggerate them to absurdity it just makes your argument look weaker.
@Fig1024 that's naive and mischaracterizing. a gov official won't show up at the dinner table, the gov will merely regulate and control until it's not viably possible to do other than what they TELL you to do.
@Fig1024 they don't have to show up at your dinner table, they can regulate it at the store. no beef to be sold less then 95% lean, tax sugar to make it too expensive, use the USDA to attack processed foods... look at what FDR did to the farmers during the depression.
how did you get "Government has the RIGHT to tell people what to eat." from Congress shall make no law respecting religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, petition of grievances. Did you Grad.Obama school of constitutional law?
@Fig1024 The government has the right to ADVISE what we should eat, but they have no power to INSIST what we eat. But your a little blind if you think they would go door to door checking what your eating, they have the power to change food at source i.e. the growers, the manufacturers, shops and importers. So yes they do have the power to ENFORCE but not the RIGHT to control what you eat very easily, especially if people are asleep and fully trusting. WAKE UP
@Fig1024 Government has the RIGHT to tell us what to eat? What? You have got to be kidding! Wake up! Stop being a lemming! America is under attack and people like you just think everything will just always be okay. Well, it's not. Not by a long shot. Watch your freedoms and liberties die every day a slow ugly death. Wake up for God's sake. I never saw that right in the Constitution. Tell me where it is?
@aurick7737 Gobs of sugar and saturated fat in every single baby food jar is not just fine. How can the average person have a chance at a lifetime of good health when they begin life chugging down mostly fat and sugar? Worst of all, nobody, including you even realize the problem.
Banning a commercial for something is not the same as the thing itself...but looking at your other posts, I can see you made up your mind and then sought out facts that support it.
The government messes up nearly everything. I don't want them in charge of what I can and can't eat. If I wanted to live in a communist country I'd live in China.
that was a totally bogus question - a stupid hypothetical situation that would never happen. on another note, it's the federal government's job to stop giving massive subsidies to big agricultural corporations - they're destroying our health, the environment and well-being of our nation's farmers!
Coburn is out of touch with reality. The so called originalists who contend that the constitution is immutable are out of touch. Just look at the 7th Amendment which if followed would tie up the court with $25 cases. Justice Kagan will be a great judge. Now if we can only get one of the activist right judges to resign we will get a fair minded court.
telling people what to eat and saving lives are two completely different things. this man suffers from logic fail.
and for the record, requiring a balanced diet by law would fix many problems we have today. the founding fathers were too busy FINDING food much less being picky about it, we live in a completely different country today. it is ridiculous to think that 200 years ago people could predict the situations people face today.
@bceugene12345 You got it all wrong. The law, if it was real, would mean that the government would have the power to regulate what type of food you would eat. For example, the bill would say how many and what kind of veggies, fruits, meat, bread, ect... in one day or in a week or so. It's not a bill that keeps harmful stuff out of food. Watch the video again.
The gov can to somepoint control what we eat just by Illiglizing foods that come in so we can't have them in the stores only the foods the gov wants us to eat there are aolt of stuipid laws that the gov all the time.They don't care what others think that much.
aha. of course she's not gonna answer against democrats... despite all the independence and objective ruling idea of her future position. what did you expect here? also a pro-argumentation for any republican proposal? "you have the right to remain silent" if you disagree... just imagine what the media would have made out of it, if she'd said "no".
@bceugene12345 So you feel the government has a right to tell us what we can and cannot eat? Where do you draw the line on government intervention? Do you know what a slippery slope is?
Coburn where are the specifics. Seems conserves speak only hyperbole and never specifics. When specifics are asked for they avoid it and offer exceptions. When it comes to the constitution, does not matter if it Benefits Big Corps. There attitude is "Show Me the Money"
Coburn if you feel so strongly that you are right, that Commerce Clause is being abused, Why not give an example?
Just like the Conservatives, "NO SPECIFICS" they just talk rhetoric. When you ask for specifics they just speak in hyperbole. Unless it is big corporations, then they do not care about the constitution.
@lewislwood So you like the idea that you have to, by law, have medical insurance. Then with the health care bill it means that you have to pay for someone else to get an abortion weather you agree with it or not. I don't pay for others to be fat, but if I make that choice for me then I must pay for it. That is the problem here.
@lewislwood Hello - the health care bill requires us to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause, and everyone in that room and those who were paying attention during the health care debate knows exactly what he was refering to.
@HK379 It's dumb because the governent does not have the authority to tell you what to eat... or anything that deals with personal liberties for that matter.
@HK379 Then ask your momma to teach you that. Do you want to be thrown in jail for breaking a law or spanked/grounded by your parents if you don't do what they say?
@Reddog2358 It's called liberty. Read John Stuart Mills. People should have the rights to do what they desire (even if it harms themselves) so long as they harm nobody else. For example, if you wanna cross a dangerous bridge, people can warn you, but nobody should stop you from making the ultimate choice.
@bceugene12345 tpical liberal. The question is not whether it is okay to poison a customer. It is not okay to put lead in a pizza and sell it as regualr pizza, and afterwards have poeple find out it has lead. The question is whether ot not the government has the power to tell us that we can or cannot eat a pizza, knowing that it contians lead. If you want to eat a pizza with lead in it, that is okay because it is part of liberty
It's also part of why this is the most obese nation on earth. 63% of the nation is overweight or obese, I can't say anyone cares to see that number continue to climb.
wow you liberals just don't get it. what Coburn was doing was saying what is called a HYPOTHETICAL question. ever heard of those?? sure doesn't sound like it. he was using a simple question to get his point across, and if you think he's an idiot for doing this, then you are calling every parent and teacher idiots because that's how people make others understand their point, by making it simple rather than complicated.
@Kazuobot It wasn't a hypothetical question; he was alluding to the health care bill which requires us to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause.
doesent matter,they can make all the laws they want,im going to do what i want anyhow,wether its legal or not,they can fine me,put me in jail,put me on probation,ect,but they have to find me,and im sure they will,but it will get harder for them each time,I am learning how to live without any of their commerce,and if your smart you will do the same.Get off the grid and be free,I havent been happier in my life,the farther i get the happier i get,but you will never know unless you try.
I is beyond reason and sanity not to IMMEDIATELY respond with the correct answer. It is a very simply question for anyone whom has read the United States Constitution.
Patrick Henry~
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, least it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Under no circumstances does this beast belong on the High Court & certainly not as nominated by The Usurper
kiiifute1 1 year ago
"courts would be wrong to strike down the lists that they think uh uh, duh , duh huh, that are senseless because they think they are senseless" ..LOL... what a small mind she has. Hey Kagan I agree with you 100%. Let's completely neglect the instincts of common sense in our courts and continue to legislate on the premise of auto pilot where the destination is clearly nowhere because thats exactly where your "rationale" is.
Entityofme1 1 year ago
@AbrahamWasIAm Chillax brah The Chosen One appointed her
OtherOne81 1 year ago
She's NEVER even been a judge and she's worked for GOLDMAN SACHS. Checkout her clip saying the government should be allowed to to ban books. She IS the sign of the times.
meshblorg 1 year ago
I have more experience in the military than Ms. K has in the legal field. Why have I not been nominated for Director of Homeland Security??? My active duty service time was 2.5 years. I also would not "try" to uphold the law nor "try" to be unbiased regarding my work. I would continue to act based on the oath I swore to prior to my nomination. I WOULD uphold the law and WOULD not have a bias-DISGUSTING!!!
8MCDonalds8 1 year ago
The Commerce Clause was from abuse under the Articles of Confederation, by States that did heavy duties on imports--and passing through--trade, evidence by 11th Amendment. The Commerce Clause is broadly interpreted and reduce the Bill of Rights beyond trade into their own Supreme law, also seen free speech restriction by personal obscene values (Lady Chatterley's Lover); it empowers Congress to say anything passing between States is Federal law, but abuse is to regulate the People themselves.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
The scheister lawyer can't answer definitively whether such an absurd law is unconstitutional. This alone is grounds for a NO vote.
hecatr 1 year ago
Her track record clearly shows she places her ideology over the law.
Under Clinton, she MODIFIED the opinion of the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from there being virtually no instance in which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to save a woman's life to say that partial-birth abortion may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. That is LYING
jgehb 1 year ago
Coburn is one of the dimmer bulbs
bluemole2 1 year ago
Never been a judge. Only one year of trial experience. Anti-military recruiting on her campus. Radical Kagan is the best qualified? HUH?
1musicwayne 1 year ago
@1musicwayne I really do not care about whether a candidate has "judicial experience". The real question is; What is the candidate's judicial philosophy and will she/he be faithful to the Constitution?
I really dont understand how extensive legal research, teaching, and publishing is any less useful to interpreting the constitution than actually being a judge. For instance, I've never been to law school, I've never been a judge, but I understand Tom Coburn's question entirely.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
My main Doctor Tom Coburn! THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THIS MAN! HE GETS THINGS DONE FOR THE PEOPLE!
Billyfrankallen 1 year ago
Throughout her career, Kagan has placed her politics above the law.
She has never been a judge, never tried a case before a jury and has practiced law for only three years. She is the least experienced nominee in the last half-century. This is just one of the many terrible decisions Obama has made as President.
Bereal818 1 year ago
@Bereal818 I heard her legal tenure, as a professional in the field, was no more than 6 months???
8MCDonalds8 1 year ago
:30 she tacitly admits that it's constitutional under the Commerce clause:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
Yes, clearly the Congress can dictate what we eat by these words.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
This women is a disaster waiting to happen. One of those 'Thurgood-Marshall-"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up"-think types'.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
She should have been kicked out on the spot when she couldn't answer this simple question.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
How can she just get away with not answering this question and still get appointed? She should have been kicked out on the spot when she couldn't answer this simple question.
Goodatconnect4 1 year ago
The Government has no power to tell Americans what to eat. It does however have the power to advise on what may be considered a legally available food product from a food safety viewpoint. that should have been her answer.
nycnikato 1 year ago
@nycnikato I agree completely.
MultiMoonkin 1 year ago
He is not asking whether his vegetable law is a good law, nor is he asking if his vegetable law violates the constitution. He's asking if it violates the commerce clause. By framing it so narrowly, he can make it seem like she's answering a question that she isn't (i.e., it's a loaded question). He knows this, and interrupts her before she can say anything about judicial interpretation.
gorbonic 1 year ago
@gorbonic "i guess the question i'm asking is: do we have the power to tell people what to eat everyday". he's asking her whether there are any limits to to the power of govt. she, unable to answer a very simple question, revealed herself.
shroomingnewman 1 year ago
She's a central planner. She's part of the same group of people who paved the way for totalitarianism to thrive in Germany and Russia.
xsited1 1 year ago
KAGAN "Courts would be wrong to strike down dumb laws" ??? that is a senseless statement ! Maybe that's why our country is going to ruins by these senseless laws that they approved!!! ACTUALLY YOU ARE SENSELESS KAGAN !!! The only reason that she is being promoted is because OBAMA IS HER HERO~~~
SHE doesn't care about the constitution, she will vote according to OBAMA.... BECAUSE THAT'S HER HERO........
TruenotesMusic 1 year ago
Food redistribution might conflict with her speech redistribution plan: The 99% rabble might say something different, and it is inconvenient, they heard that somewhere, might be a sin.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
I can't believe that she can't answer to a question" Can we tell the people what they have to eat? " He studded and thought about what to say........ that is because she believes that the government CAN tell the people what to eat.....
Its a simple question and the answer is NO.....
This is what she believes::: NO GUNS, CONTROL OF FOOD, CONSTITUTION IS DEAD, CONTROL OF PURCHASING, FORCEFUL VACCINATIONS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS THE ANSWER AND OBAMA IS GOD,
TruenotesMusic 1 year ago
@TruenotesMusic Perfectly Said!
stevethrasher 1 year ago
There is still time to oppose Elaine
Kagan for The Surpeme Court.
Contact your Senators NOW !!!
There is still time left to keep this commie out the courts!!!
wsg2112 1 year ago
Everyone contact their Senators NOW, and let them know how much of an injustice it would be to the American people to have this person on the Supreme Court !!!
wsg2112 1 year ago
Does anyone know what would happen if we all just flat-out refused to buy health insurance or pay the penalties/taxes for it? Would we all go to already over-crowded jails, or what?
Insecurebcoy 1 year ago
coburn should have let her answer to hang herself on her own words.
shroomingnewman 1 year ago
Do not Throw RandOm CapitOl LetTerS aRound wheN yoU arE Trying to Make an ArguMent!
ursweety888 1 year ago
" It is a sign of a wicked generation when women
are given authority over men". - Chinese proverb.
mokurai81 1 year ago
Wow, I can't believe these comments I'm reading here. I mean, what the man is saying is simply common sense. The government has no right to control what people eat, and one would think every American would agree. Obviously, some people just look for a way to disagree for the sake of it, or there are a lot of people here who are just wacked out.
uthetube09 1 year ago
A "Dumb law" or Senseless law is not the question. That was a diversion. She then proceeds to attack the straw-man argument she just created instead of answering the question. Why? She's not stupid. She knows the "Senseless Law" was mirroring Obamacare. She was trying to conceal how she plans (in advance, so much for impartiality) to vote in favor of requiring all Americans to engage in commerce directed by the government.
SnileyS 1 year ago
smart man!
miaonthewall 1 year ago
kagan for president 2012
ericfeinberg28 1 year ago
@ericfeinberg28 I love tyranny, don't you?
Kane88andToews19 1 year ago
@ericfeinberg28 i hope ur joking
bodybuilder444444 1 year ago
I reluctantly say "Like" to this video even though Elena Kagan is disgusting.
"Uh, I think...."
usdesertdweller 1 year ago
kagan seems stunned that Coburn would ask such an idiotic question
paperchasin23 1 year ago
Kagan = Pure walking talking Excrement!
borntobewilder9 1 year ago
She didn't decline anything. She didn't get a chance to answer. But at the same time, that was a loaded question. And this title is Right Wing propaganda!!
nutblast23 1 year ago
The fed govt is too big, overpaid & out of control.
Solution?! 1st, outlaw public sector unions, limit arbitration.
Exempt military, but:
10% pay drop, 50/50 shared benefits, EVERY fed @ +125K
7.5% pay drop, 50/50 shared benefits, EVERY fed @ +100K
5% pay drop, 50/50 shared benefits, EVERY fed @ +50K
2.5% pay drop, 50/50 shared benefits, EVERY fed @ -50K
Hold ALL 100% accountable.
Many 1,000's WILL retire early. No new hires until each dept sheds 10%+ employees.
Pass this around.
justtex1975 1 year ago
We should be feeding the poor and starving 50 percent of the world instead of stuffing our faces with food every available second. The government needs to place emphasis on intelligence and free thinking outside of the cultural bubble, but that will never happen. So were stuck with this problem until people wake up from the american dreams handed down by television and other forms of media.
vJpRIzM 1 year ago
I encourage people to look up the entirety of this transaction. Don't you find the spot where it cut of to be a little suspicious? Immediately after this, Kagan tells exactly why Congress CAN'T tell you what to eat. People, please look for the facts yourself.
100percentrekkie 1 year ago
who the hell could inforce that or would inforce something like that
mrjammed 1 year ago
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
How is this so hard for the Supreme court to understand? Congress has no power to mandate eating fruits and vegetables from the interstate commerce clause. Simple
alc99 1 year ago
The lifetime position is just too important to comfirm someone with no experience on the bench. Just because I've had surgery does not qualify me to perform surgery on others!
EPSWhiz 1 year ago
I'm a liberal, but I'm in total agreement with Senator Coburn, atleast on the issue of food. Forbidding Americans from eating fatty foods might cut obesity and obesity-related deaths, but it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, cigarettes and alcohol will be prohibited too. Would that save lives? Sure, but it doesn't make it constitutional.
LEGALIZE MARIJUANA
TheBackOfTheBoat 1 year ago
UNLEASH THE Kaaaaaaaagan. lol
XR42 1 year ago
@Nauckauha Learn to spell, then shut up. Because you are as stupid as Tom Coburn.
dwade1962eagle 1 year ago
What a joke our representative government has become. can't wait for Nov and 2012 to throw all of them out. As far as Kagan, thank god there will be 8 others to cancel out her radical agenda. I almost threw up after watching her in this video.
ejuoi 1 year ago
DEMOCRAT FEMALE KAGAN IS SMARTER THEN REPUBLICAN MEN, WOW,I SEE HOW THEY ASK HER QUESTIONS, CAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID THEY RUIN ECONOMY AFTER 9/11, AND NOW THEY HAVE NOTHING PRODUCTIVE TO DO, SO THEY ASK HER STUPID QUESTIONS,DUE TO 9/11 ECONOMY COLAPSED ITS ALL REPUBLICANS FAULT ,BUSH DIDNT GET ALONG WITH SAUDIS WHO CANT SPELL THEIR NAMES/ KAGAN SHOULD ASK REPUBLICANS QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11. WHY REPUBLICANS ASK HER QUESTIONS? ECONOMY COLAPSED DUE TO 9/11!GOD BLESS HER PARENTS! GOD BLESS USA!
democratsaresmart 1 year ago
Valid point Sen Coburn.
If you support a law to prevent the Gov from forcing ME!...
To stop on red lights when I am driving it would greatly increase my freedoms. Why cant I have the freedoms to do what I want? Anyway, you will have my vote if I can drive around like a crazy, I mean freedom loving free man. Less Gov regulation and more crazy Republican talk about how the Gov is going to force you to clean your room and eat your vegetables.
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Nauckauha I don't need to ask her a thing, especially about a day in the life of a beaurocrat from 15 years ago. I actually don't even know what point you are trying to make. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting the continuation of anti-drug policies by people who don't want to be told what they can eat. Is Kagan worthy of the Supreme Court? Darn right she is if Alito and Roberts were worthy. Does she have judicial experience? Nope, but that's not a unique circumstance. Move on.
hempec 1 year ago
Does this mean that my Republican friends that are commenting here would be willing to end the DEA since the commerce clause can't be used to regulate the consumption of something that is bad for you? If the government has the right to ban narcotics, doesn't it also have the right to ban transfats, or force people to eat vegetables? If you are willing to tell others what they can do for recreational entertainment for the good of the country, you have to accept others forcing you to eat spinach
hempec 1 year ago
@hempec
Perhaps you are realizing that it's a horrible abuse of liberty in both instances. Or is it ok just because the 'other' guys did something similar? It's wrong on both counts, banning personal consumption or transfats.
thevorpal 1 year ago
@hempec The FACT is that the Constitution gives the PEOPLE of America to do absolutely ANYTHING they want withing certain parameter. The Preamble to the Constituion give FULL authority for healthcare reform. Furthermore if enough people want it they can CHANGE or ELIMINATE any part of the Constitution through the Amendment process just like they did for universal suffrage and outlawing slavery. This includes ANY of the first ten or any other part of the Constitution.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
@hempec Last time I checks spinach didn't make you OD or neglect taking care of your children! Now I would agree pot is in the same category as drinking but blow, X, drugs of that nature are vary bad and should be banned!
mhunt05 1 year ago
You nailed it Senator! Thanks!
NewMexicoSunset 1 year ago
YES tell people what to eat, I am sick of all these fattys getting in my way.
chodaboy19 1 year ago
smoke and mirrors.
enjoy the diversion.
vivisectmu 1 year ago
The whole government is puke! except a precious few...
No FOX/CNN/MSNBC Backed Candidates 2012!
If their for it we're against it!
lushfauna 1 year ago
them dem kagan got owned . A vote for republican is a vote for common sense.
21centurynostradamus 1 year ago
@21centurynostradamus lmfao like G.W. was a vote for common sense. get over the BS party crap. kill the fed res bank and hang all treasonous politicians allowing the rape of our ppl and land for thier pockets.
kanakalono 1 year ago
republican MORONS.... im so glad in 10 years the republican party will be so overrated and repulsive, until them this nation will truly be free
stevan5000 1 year ago
@stevan5000
i highly doubt that. the democrats are screwing up the country right now with Obama as president, making the debt soar more than any other time in the recent history. He just doesn't know when to stop spending tax payer money. He is also terribly negative in his personality. He is always complaining about how horrible everything is and blaming everyone but himself for the crumbling of our great nation into pieces. And without Republicans, we would be a socialist nation.
Kazuobot 1 year ago
its a good question - search codex alimentarius - they really are trying to do this.
XXXREDROOMXXX 1 year ago
were just one fat country, arent we
maundeezie 1 year ago
Let's see what kinda of excuses the democrats will make for this one...
daviddaviddavid1able 1 year ago
she could not answer because she knows what obamacare has in store. alreagy gov't mandates that you can't eat transfats in some states. why is it so absurd to think they will MANDATE healthy eating then tax and penalize those that don't? it's a natural extension of liberal thinking. the gvmt must make you do things FOR YOUR OWN GOOD from birth to death. she didn't answer that simple question because she knows what's coming.
NKNIGHT62 1 year ago
i like her
AlphaWaste 1 year ago
but they have the power to tell you what to smoke....
darkstone243 1 year ago
@darkstone243
No, they don't. They have the power to dictate what you *can't* smoke, not what you *have to* smoke.
Bei1052 1 year ago
gov't already mandates what we can't eat (transfats in some jurisdictions) so why is it so absurd that gov't will tell us what we MUST EAT "for our own good" ? do it or get fined , pay higher taxes (health INS premiums etc). obamacare is coming that's why she didn't answer... she knows what's coming and didn't want to trap herself later
NKNIGHT62 1 year ago
the gov't already mandates what we can't eat (transfats) so why is it so absurd that they will tell us what we MUST eat ?
NKNIGHT62 1 year ago
Why is this a big deal? The gov't doesnt have the right enforce what we eat everyday and it isnt possible to enforce such a stupid law. Does it have the power? Maybe
theRorasaur 1 year ago
It seems to me the commerce clause is pretty broad. Regulating interstate commerce gives congress a lot of running room.
jx14aby 1 year ago
Fig, u are wrong. They will not show up at the diner table and tell you what to eat or not. The liberals want to tax it off your table. Before you have a chance to buy it. They are already doing this in several cities. Look it up!!!
Squinkle360 1 year ago
The question is; Can the gubmint force a US citizen to buy a product. If its healthcare then why not a car or a mule. Oilbama is destroying this country.
Puleeeze 1 year ago
@lsleeter Either we have to separate someone's costs from someone else, or no action will be unjustified in the pursuit of lower cost.
1amayzingman 1 year ago
@lsleeter
How about changing the laws so you are not finanically responsible for others' poor health. Did you EVEN think before posting?
PBScenarioScene 1 year ago
She is not ready for prime time.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
This really is a stupid question. If she says that yes, the Supreme Court can nullify stupid laws, then she is painted as an activist. If she says no, then she is painted as socialist.
She answered correctly. It is the legislature's job to create laws. The supreme court does not judge the intelligence of a law, only its constitutionality.
shalcall 1 year ago
@lsleeter You think people without insurance get free care when they go to the emergency room? Are you aware that those people are billed for the services they receive? I do not have health insurance (cannot afford it). I cut my arm very badly last summer and had to get stitches. I spent the next year paying off a $1200 medical bill. Had I not paid it, the hospital would sell the debt to a collections agency, losing little money on what was already a lucrative deal for them.
kinga750 1 year ago
The government does not have the right to take our freedoms or to usurp the Constitution. If you do not think they could come into your home or life to do so, just remember Germany. The more laws made, the less freedom we have. Only we can stop this, politicians will not.
mvies77 1 year ago
To me this question is stupid as hell. The Supreme Court is the same place that ruled Dred Scott a freed black man could not be free in MO becuz it was a slave state and because he was technically property. I def don't put any faith in this crockpot judicial system.
sharpsolutions2003 1 year ago
This whole hearing has been one retarted question after another. There is a reason why congress has only a 20% approval rating, and this isn't helping.
mikelae19 1 year ago
All these people talking about libs and obama still don't get republicans are the same they both play for the same team Obama and Sarah palin both play for the same team
melo15813 1 year ago
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MANDATE COMMERCE. That is the point, and once they believe that they have that right, where does it end? She believes that the government is an end unto itself. This is government gone wild.
hydin1 1 year ago
In soviet Russia, food eat you!
deuceownzu 1 year ago
Funny how the same ones who shout "my body, my choice" when it comes to murdering the unborn will not afford that same choice when it comes to what we choose to eat. Food Nazi's, you can have my Big Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
goguard07 1 year ago
@rns13 and your point is?
hansel4150 1 year ago
@lsleeteroh yeah, because the government does everything else SO WELL, they should control health care.
hansel4150 1 year ago
just another liberal
hansel4150 1 year ago
Yeah...the government has the right to "TELL" people what to eat...NOT ENFORCE IT!
The conservatives are again flaunting their idiocy!
freakyfarooq 1 year ago
@lsleeter ........ of wealth. instead of protecting your liberty they are destroying personal liberty in the name of social welfare. group "A" can't afford their hospital bill so the government forces everyone to buy Insurance & group "B" will pay for it. not only taking away money from group B but also liberty
davidpark68 1 year ago
@lsleeter Nope, you still don't get it."the government should not tell you what to do in your life" as long as your not infringing on someones rights or property. "until it starts affecting others" is a problem because the effect you are referring to (subsidized hospital bill) was caused by government regulation. "Millions not having health care does affect me" again, only because of government involvement. the problem is Government should not be involved with subsidies or redistribution......
davidpark68 1 year ago
@lsleeter Your argument is disingenuous at best. Liberals don't mind making conservatives pay for the health care and other programs for illegal immigrants. This is just another socialist power grab.
mytube373 1 year ago
retard
Nevermind900426 1 year ago
@SpaghettiJimmyWINS
Yes, this is exactly what will happen. Lock your doors. THE VEGGIE POLICE ARE COMING.
11111110 1 year ago
@lsleeter Insurance is a scheme, a legalized shceme but a schemejust the same. Insurance doesn't spread risk, it spreads costs which is why goods and services covered costs so much. You dip spit libs have empowered the very insurance companies you know are the problem to begin with.
dlucas90 1 year ago
Agreed with @fig1024
KornKidd25 1 year ago
The government has the power to federally enforce a dietary overhaul on all citizens. Sugar is murdering more people in the 1st world than all diseases account for killing in the 3rd world. Any jar of baby food has a 3 to 1 ratio of sugar to protein. Newsflash, we aren't maggots, so why are our children being fed poison to keep them weak? A 3 to 1 sugar to protein ratio is a poor medium to nurture a developing mammalian body.
jmorgan87 1 year ago
how about instead of them forcing us to eat better, make selling food that kills people illegal, no matter how profitable it is because half this country is fat bumpkin idiots.
Mrmtjones 1 year ago
Government has the RIGHT to tell people what to eat. It's part of the 1st Amendment. But government has no power to ENFORCE what Americans eat. And if you are seriously worried about some government official showing up at your dinner table and telling you what you can and cannot it - then I suggest seeking therapy.
Fig1024 1 year ago
@Fig1024 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" --1st Amendment
Which part of this gives the govt. ANY right?
SecondAmdmt 1 year ago
@Fig1024 Way to straw man the position.... No cops aren't going to raid your house for eating certain foods, but what he is inferring rather that bans will be placed on unhealthy food so you can't go to the supermarket and buy the food you like. Please be reasonable when saying things, and not to exaggerate them to absurdity it just makes your argument look weaker.
Lavitzzz 1 year ago
@Fig1024 that's naive and mischaracterizing. a gov official won't show up at the dinner table, the gov will merely regulate and control until it's not viably possible to do other than what they TELL you to do.
brothermoon 1 year ago
@Fig1024 they don't have to show up at your dinner table, they can regulate it at the store. no beef to be sold less then 95% lean, tax sugar to make it too expensive, use the USDA to attack processed foods... look at what FDR did to the farmers during the depression.
how did you get "Government has the RIGHT to tell people what to eat." from Congress shall make no law respecting religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, petition of grievances. Did you Grad.Obama school of constitutional law?
davidpark68 1 year ago
@Fig1024
Awesome post! haha
bennettprudhomme 1 year ago
@Fig1024 The government has the right to ADVISE what we should eat, but they have no power to INSIST what we eat. But your a little blind if you think they would go door to door checking what your eating, they have the power to change food at source i.e. the growers, the manufacturers, shops and importers. So yes they do have the power to ENFORCE but not the RIGHT to control what you eat very easily, especially if people are asleep and fully trusting. WAKE UP
eyeswideopennimrod 1 year ago
@Fig1024 Government has the RIGHT to tell us what to eat? What? You have got to be kidding! Wake up! Stop being a lemming! America is under attack and people like you just think everything will just always be okay. Well, it's not. Not by a long shot. Watch your freedoms and liberties die every day a slow ugly death. Wake up for God's sake. I never saw that right in the Constitution. Tell me where it is?
TerryInTheHills 1 year ago
@Fig1024 Huh?
DoublePrimo44004 1 year ago
november, vote the libs the hell out!
mmjj2 1 year ago
A vote for Kagan, Is a vote for Obama's socialisim. Welcome to russia.
TheImpeacher 1 year ago
@TheImpeacher Russia is a republic now. They were Communistic more than Socialistic as well.
dmaradona10 1 year ago
Is he holding up a bible?
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall I believe its the Federalist Papers.
animan360 1 year ago
a no would have been just fine....
aurick7737 1 year ago
@aurick7737 Gobs of sugar and saturated fat in every single baby food jar is not just fine. How can the average person have a chance at a lifetime of good health when they begin life chugging down mostly fat and sugar? Worst of all, nobody, including you even realize the problem.
jmorgan87 1 year ago
I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless." Kagan
The only thing that matters is if the law is Constitutional or not.
It doesn't matter what she thinks or anyone else thinks.
No one has the right to tell others what to eat.
She doesn't have what it takes to be on the Supreme court and she is far to left to be in politics.
Camel76 1 year ago
@BarackMugabe
Banning a commercial for something is not the same as the thing itself...but looking at your other posts, I can see you made up your mind and then sought out facts that support it.
francomcneil 1 year ago
Way to take a civil function that must be accomplished and turn it into another political vehicle. Thanks America.
LoganTrigger 1 year ago
The government messes up nearly everything. I don't want them in charge of what I can and can't eat. If I wanted to live in a communist country I'd live in China.
doc7474 1 year ago
that was a totally bogus question - a stupid hypothetical situation that would never happen. on another note, it's the federal government's job to stop giving massive subsidies to big agricultural corporations - they're destroying our health, the environment and well-being of our nation's farmers!
tactteam00 1 year ago
@tactteam00 its actually not too far off. some countries are starting to outlaw trans fats
ajxcman 1 year ago
@bceugene12345 you're pretty retarded.. just saying
spaniardjs 1 year ago
"Freedom is not really free." It is the most important factor in our short stay upon earth, and idiots are going to let it slip away.
callofduty8301947 1 year ago
Coburn is out of touch with reality. The so called originalists who contend that the constitution is immutable are out of touch. Just look at the 7th Amendment which if followed would tie up the court with $25 cases. Justice Kagan will be a great judge. Now if we can only get one of the activist right judges to resign we will get a fair minded court.
tolbiny66 1 year ago
telling people what to eat and saving lives are two completely different things. this man suffers from logic fail.
and for the record, requiring a balanced diet by law would fix many problems we have today. the founding fathers were too busy FINDING food much less being picky about it, we live in a completely different country today. it is ridiculous to think that 200 years ago people could predict the situations people face today.
lazylink 1 year ago
@lewislwood You know all libtard are liars,keep spewing your obama nazi trash.It is pushing "We The People" or what morons like you hate.
PatriotTexas 1 year ago
Let people get fat and suffer from heart problems, diabetes, etc.
marmarluxia 1 year ago
well the govt already tells us what to do with our uteruses...so why not? LOL
sinisteric 1 year ago
@arsawyer84, i agree with you a 100%
IkramKetchman 1 year ago
I eat fruits and veggies everyday lol so i don't care
tookietookie123 1 year ago
The government cant protect my rights all they want. But when they infringe on them, its time to grab my gun.
wafflesfly 1 year ago
@wafflesfly Our founding fathers fought WITH guns so we dont have to. they fought and killed so we could fight with our words and our votes.
hansel4150 1 year ago
See "America Weakened by Obama" on you tube
irontpt 1 year ago
@bceugene12345 You got it all wrong. The law, if it was real, would mean that the government would have the power to regulate what type of food you would eat. For example, the bill would say how many and what kind of veggies, fruits, meat, bread, ect... in one day or in a week or so. It's not a bill that keeps harmful stuff out of food. Watch the video again.
usmc721 1 year ago
The gov can to somepoint control what we eat just by Illiglizing foods that come in so we can't have them in the stores only the foods the gov wants us to eat there are aolt of stuipid laws that the gov all the time.They don't care what others think that much.
GhostTech100 1 year ago
aha. of course she's not gonna answer against democrats... despite all the independence and objective ruling idea of her future position. what did you expect here? also a pro-argumentation for any republican proposal? "you have the right to remain silent" if you disagree... just imagine what the media would have made out of it, if she'd said "no".
TheTACT 1 year ago
The reason American's are fat is because everybody is allowed to put MSG in foods and they do!!!! Tons of the crap. Makes you addicted. Ask KFC.
ittlebite 1 year ago
@bceugene12345 So you feel the government has a right to tell us what we can and cannot eat? Where do you draw the line on government intervention? Do you know what a slippery slope is?
corysoulier 1 year ago
I can't believe you people think the point of this video is about eating healthy.
moses1424 1 year ago
I don't care if 99% of the population is overweight, the govt should stay out of my business!
buddywill50 1 year ago
Coburn where are the specifics. Seems conserves speak only hyperbole and never specifics. When specifics are asked for they avoid it and offer exceptions. When it comes to the constitution, does not matter if it Benefits Big Corps. There attitude is "Show Me the Money"
lewislwood 1 year ago
Coburn if you feel so strongly that you are right, that Commerce Clause is being abused, Why not give an example?
Just like the Conservatives, "NO SPECIFICS" they just talk rhetoric. When you ask for specifics they just speak in hyperbole. Unless it is big corporations, then they do not care about the constitution.
lewislwood 1 year ago
@lewislwood So you like the idea that you have to, by law, have medical insurance. Then with the health care bill it means that you have to pay for someone else to get an abortion weather you agree with it or not. I don't pay for others to be fat, but if I make that choice for me then I must pay for it. That is the problem here.
creativewriter101 1 year ago
@lewislwood Hello - the health care bill requires us to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause, and everyone in that room and those who were paying attention during the health care debate knows exactly what he was refering to.
4TIMESAYEAR 1 year ago
That aint a dumb law.. thats healthy .
HK379 1 year ago
@HK379 It's dumb because the governent does not have the authority to tell you what to eat... or anything that deals with personal liberties for that matter.
usmc721 1 year ago
@HK379
hahaha!! good one!
Kazuobot 1 year ago
@HK379 Then ask your momma to teach you that. Do you want to be thrown in jail for breaking a law or spanked/grounded by your parents if you don't do what they say?
mattlewis66 1 year ago
that guy is like so right about this that its actually funny because its like common sense and the democrats dont get it!!
parodyfreaks101 1 year ago
We own our bodies, not the government.
TheConspiracyRealist 1 year ago
Oh good lord, could you imagine if we had to eat HEALTHY?! The horror, the horror!
Reddog2358 1 year ago
@Reddog2358 It's called liberty. Read John Stuart Mills. People should have the rights to do what they desire (even if it harms themselves) so long as they harm nobody else. For example, if you wanna cross a dangerous bridge, people can warn you, but nobody should stop you from making the ultimate choice.
Pittguy2012 1 year ago
@Reddog2358 The questions was not about food, but about government's interference in individual freedoms.
BlueSkies360 1 year ago
@bceugene12345 tpical liberal. The question is not whether it is okay to poison a customer. It is not okay to put lead in a pizza and sell it as regualr pizza, and afterwards have poeple find out it has lead. The question is whether ot not the government has the power to tell us that we can or cannot eat a pizza, knowing that it contians lead. If you want to eat a pizza with lead in it, that is okay because it is part of liberty
sharinganclan213 1 year ago
@sharinganclan213
It's also part of why this is the most obese nation on earth. 63% of the nation is overweight or obese, I can't say anyone cares to see that number continue to climb.
tdk813 1 year ago
Dear Oklahoma,
Please stop electing idiots to the Senate.
Love, the other 49 states.
jedgeco 1 year ago
@jedgeco
wow you liberals just don't get it. what Coburn was doing was saying what is called a HYPOTHETICAL question. ever heard of those?? sure doesn't sound like it. he was using a simple question to get his point across, and if you think he's an idiot for doing this, then you are calling every parent and teacher idiots because that's how people make others understand their point, by making it simple rather than complicated.
Kazuobot 1 year ago
@Kazuobot It wasn't a hypothetical question; he was alluding to the health care bill which requires us to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause.
4TIMESAYEAR 1 year ago
@jedgeco hahah, GREAT ONE!
hansel4150 1 year ago
doesent matter,they can make all the laws they want,im going to do what i want anyhow,wether its legal or not,they can fine me,put me in jail,put me on probation,ect,but they have to find me,and im sure they will,but it will get harder for them each time,I am learning how to live without any of their commerce,and if your smart you will do the same.Get off the grid and be free,I havent been happier in my life,the farther i get the happier i get,but you will never know unless you try.
semiLivedj 1 year ago
I is beyond reason and sanity not to IMMEDIATELY respond with the correct answer. It is a very simply question for anyone whom has read the United States Constitution.
putittogether 1 year ago
What's the third party? Are you talking about independent party?
TheIphone4thewin 1 year ago