The August Attempt on Saudi Prince Mohammed – and the Link to Flight 253

Yeah! Well GW Bush has underwear too! No one search him! How about that?

liberty – do you ever get a sense this endless partisan food fight isn’t getting you anywhere?

How many crotched bombing attempts do they need before they realize this procedure ain’t really so bright?

This morning Mr. Brennan stated that repatriation of Gitmo detainees to Yemen will continue. He stated that he was encouraged that Yemen had placed some of the detainees in confinement.
I wonder why the reporter didn’t ask him what happened to the USS Cole plotters who were also in Yemeni custody.
I wonder why the reporter didn’t bring up Mr. Brennan’s obvious conflict of interest being Presidential adviser on security and being a contractor to the government in the area of security, including in the area he is supposedly investigating.
I wonder how long the MSM will allow themselves to so completely humiliated by this administration. We know they backed his election, but come on…

“POLITICO: White House counter terrorism chief John Brennan said system worked ‘every other day’ in ’09″
Posted by: Denbo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sure: Every other day, like Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, but not Monday, Wednesday and Friday!

Err, “Anyone else starting to get the feeling that Al Quaida is just very INcompetent?”
(proofreading is for pay’n work!)

As Obama play more golf in one year than Bush played in 8 year, 7,000,000 people are out of work, 5,000,000 of them lost their jobs during Obama, home foreclosures at a record high, 12.4 trillion in the hole, headed for 19 trillion. states going bankrupt, All Liberal run states the worst and yet he plays record amounts of golf

Paul…….do you ever get a sense this endless partisan food fight isn’t getting you anywhere?
========================
Now that is funny…..Where were you the last 8 years, partisan food fight was invented by the Democrats, the worst mud slinging I’ve ever seen. What part do you think I’m from, the Right, the independent, the Libertarian part, what? Your upset set because it’s your side getting beat up, and for all the right reason, Obama, Nancy, Reid and the rest of the life long, self serving bums you voted it, don’t care about anything but staying in power and controlling people life under socialism. Look at Michigan and who has run that state for thje last 15/20 years

How many crotched bombing attempts do they need before they realize this procedure ain’t really so bright?
————-
I’m more concerned that they will continue trying until they find the right amount of explosives and realize the bomb should be detonated in private instead of where others can stop them.
If this fool had set the thing off in the toilet WITH a working detonater, we would be mourning the death of hundreds of people. Remember, the plane was in direct approach for landing. Exploding, burning plane parts would have fallen on the airport and surrounding buildings.

I miss George Bush….compared to Obama, Old George was genius.

warrottjr: If our support for Israel is responsible for terrorism, then how do you explain the terrorist attacks in Britain, Spain, Jordan, India, Algeria,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Chechnya, Kenya, Nigeria and Bangladesh? Many of these countries do not have relations with Israel or are openly hostile to Israel.

So the Republicans would like to infer validity to the “hind sight is 20-20″ saying! What BS! Imagine if the country’s democrats would have done the same right after 9-11! Instead we united, and gave an incompetent President a chance.
And now, the republicans choose to sow discourse… malcontent. Division is their main objective, just to get a few of them voted in… SHAME is not strong enough a word. DAMNED they are. However, We the American people can not be fooled by this.
Just who is the terrorist? Those who try to destroy us from the outside, or those who try to destroy us from the inside?

For those of you who are saying that they miss Bush, I want just to remind them that it is Bush who set the world into this trouble
_________________________________________

For those of you who are saying that they miss Bush, I want just to remind them that it is Bush who set the world into this trouble
______________________________________
Enough of this ridiculous nonsense. The persons responsible for all the senseless killing are al qaeda members. You may disagree with Bush’s policies, but his intent was to keep our nation safe against an insidious enemy. Blind ideologues need to open their eyes and stop blaming ourselves for the behavior of those following a sick, violent,twisted form of “religion.”

Bush stirred up a big hornets nest with the Iraq debacle “war” – what an idiot. Now, we will forever be paying the price. Why couldn’t he have left it alone? Now, we are hated more than ever, chasing Al Quaeda all over the globe.

Since Not one information about the 2007 released known Terrorist was given to the Obama administration on or after January 20 2009, How can the Republicans with a straight face claim that their Administration and their intelligence was better?
It must be wonderful in La La Land for the Republicans.

“It must be wonderful in La La Land for the Republicans.”
Oh, it is!
But it is not half as wonderful as it is for the Democrats that are divorced from reality and wandering lost in obamaland.
:D (Lol – You can’t make some of this stuff up…)

Let me know when bodies are falling from the sky.. I want to get some shaved ice and play a little golf

lmao the Marxist, are running against Bush again…..trying to cover up for Obamas incompetence…Moveons cartoon page put the word out.

In this little segment here, you are seeing a preview of the 2010 election strategy by the dems – continue to run against George Bush.
They will continue to blame everything bad that happens in the world on George Bush – as long as people will buy it. And as long as ABC, etc. will help them spin it.
And they will.

Asked if the FAA was put on alert, Brennan said, “there was nothing in that assassination attempt against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef that indicated aviation was a target…The suicide bomber came in next to him. We were very concerned about the possible assassination attempts.”
————
My kingdom for a little visionary imagination in the administration.
Let’s look at this. They have knowledge of a small but effective device. It did explode—it worked!
But they can’t look beyond the known use to other possible uses. It didn’t dawn on anyone that the method could be easily modified by increasing the amount of one or both of the explosive materials. No one thought that using this device near certain parts of the plane could disable most if not all of the primary means of controlling the aircraft. Than an explosion near the oxygen supply could have magnified the strength of the device sufficient to bring the plane down.
When I first heard of this attempt, I thought: no way we can blame President Obama and I defended him. But this article reveals facts that tell me my first impression was wrong. Airlines and airports should have been notified all over the world.
With all that was known about Abdulmutallab, he should never have been allowed to board in Yemin, let alone in Amsterdam on a direct flight to an American airport.

From someone who remembers that terrorism has been with us with increasing frequency since the 70′s I believe that blaming someone else is simply silly. Yet, according to a British newspaper that was exactly what President Obamas administration was doing right after the Christmas Day attempt by a mryiad of responses by the Presidents advisors and spokemen.
The past is the past and how they handle threats is their responsibility but blaming someone else does not cut it in the real world. A year ago I had hopes that after a seemingly endless campaign that the country would get down to business and jobs for those without yet here we are a year later and instead of fresh ideas all we have is idealism.

Maybe we should send pantyboy to Saudi and see if they can motivated him to disclose AQ info , since our government lacks the guts .

This is how disgusting the Republicans are – two Republicans today on Fox news Sunday, said that AlQueda won on Christmas day! ! Are the Republicans losing their minds!! Now the Republicans are congratulating the terrorist! As I recall, it was the passengers on the plane who took down the bomber, it is the pssengers who were the real winners on Christmas Day!
———–
Kara, not all Republicans feel that way.
But I don’t think they were congratulating the terrorist. They were pointing out that an al Qaeda controlled terrorist did get past our defenses. They just managed to do a very bad job of expressing themselves. Fort of like Napolitano.
Lucky for all America, the creep’s detonater didn’t work and the passengers bravely acted to minimize the damage that could have been caused by the fire.

This is how disgusting the Republicans are – two Republicans today on Fox news Sunday, said that AlQueda won on Christmas day! ! Are the Republicans losing their minds!! Now the Republicans are congratulating the terrorist!
As I recall, it was the passengers on the plane who took down the bomber, it is the pssengers who were the real winners on Christmas Day!
______________________________________
The Republicans have attacked the President for everything he’s done – from taking his kids for ice cream, or shave ice to improving benefits for returning soldiers to visiting the wounded in hospital.
It doesn’t matter the reality, the mission is to smear and demonize the President and the Democrats.
No wonder they drift further and further away from mainstream America.

Instead it’s too . . . raising our taxes
____________________________________
The Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave 95% of Americans tax breaks. $288 Billion worth of tax breaks . . .

The right-wing propaganda machine will stop at nothing to push their agenda including editorializing an attack stymied by brave citizens as an enemy success.
….
It’s crazy. Hoekstra, DeMint, Cheney, and so on.
I loved Rachel Maddow’s response (MSNBC).Among other things she said:
“The rallying cry now from Republicans is that we shouldn‘t try the Christmas bomber in civilian court—that, instead, he should be tried in a military tribunal, declared an enemy combatant. I mean, what‘s the value of a military tribunal here… You really think this kid can‘t be convicted? You really think we don‘t have enough evidence beyond the—beyond the, I don‘t know, 300 or so eyewitnesses who were on the plane? The fact that we have the weapon that he tried to use? The fact that he confessed? You think that‘s not enough to get this kid convicted?
You have that little faith in our criminal justice system? That little faith in the rule of law? You don‘t believe that a supermax federal American prison is capable of holding this kid? You think it might be cool, instead, to martyr this kid as some impressive soldier, instead of some idiot confused rich kid who couldn‘t even handle blowing up his own junk with a bomb that was secreted in his own underpants?
We‘re supposed to take national security advice from you guys?
Really?”
That’s what I’ve been sayin’

“It’s crazy. Hoekstra, DeMint, Cheney, and so on.”
Did you see Terry Moran skewer Hoekstra this morning on This Week with[out] George…? Hoestra’s rambling non-response was pitifully funny. I think it’s up on their web page if anybody cares to see a weasel squirm.

The Oracle of the Right–George Will–seems to think it was nothing more than systemic error that should be corrected; There are always going to be mistakes.
What are the Republicans going to do about this guy? He’s going to get kicked out of the party for sure if he keeps this up.

Did you see Terry Moran skewer Hoekstra this morning on This Week with[out] George…? Hoestra’s rambling non-response was pitifully funny.
…
Yes it was. Worth a look for those who haven’t seen it. Glad Moran stepped up to the plate!
I also thought Brennan’s response to Cheney this morning (on MTP) was worth thinking about: … “either the vice president or others have willfully mischaracterized President Obama’s position and actions or they’re just ignorant of the facts. I think in either case, it doesn’t speak well to sort of the reasons why they sort of went out and said these things.”
And I enjoyed McCaskill taking on DeMint on MTP: “With all due respect, this is nuts.”
Chertoff, too, took on some of the Republican memes, arguing that “relying on preconceptions or stereotypes is actually kind of misleading and arguably dangerous.” Chertoff pointed out the obvious– that al Qaeda has and will in the future recruit people “who don’t fit the stereotype.” This was in response to calls for strict, harsh racial profiling (see McInerney on Fox for example.)

Posted by: Whiplash | Jan 3, 2010 7:43:00 PM
Al qaeda is weakening and I wholeheartedly disagree with elevating failed and captured terrorists’ statuses to worthy opponent warrior martyrs who must be given special military tribunals when our courts and supermax prisons are perfectly capable. I’ve had several folks on here disagree with me, but the arguments aren’t very persuasive to me. I’m with Maddow on this one.

the primary focus of the criticism is the fact that he is rapidly turning the country into a facist/socialist regime.
…
which makes the criticism all the more stupid and insane– or maybe just ignorant.Most folks don’t seem to get what that actually means or see where they’re going seriously awry.
Jake’s quote regarding Interpol and seriousness about national security might be worth another read– and you may also want to read Interpol’s website and do some independent research via nonpartisan sources as you seem to be blowing that issue way out of proportion.
As for health care and steps toward cutting fossil fuel emissions, those are important social measures that most first world nations have addressed. Its time to move into the twenty-first century and act like a responsible nation as well as a powerful one. Its clear that much of our citizenry is spoiled and doesn’t get it, but more get it than don’t and I’m glad the President and the Democrats in Congress are taking these issues seriously, despite the vitriol of the opposition.

Its clear that much of our citizenry is spoiled and doesn’t get it, but more get it than don’t and I’m glad the President and the Democrats in Congress are taking these issues seriously, despite the vitriol of the opposition.
Posted by: There is no Planet B |
The more you explain it to them the less they want it. Maybe you guys need to make another movie or something.

As for health care and steps toward cutting fossil fuel emissions, those are important social measures that most first world nations have addressed. Its time to move into the twenty-first century and act like a responsible nation as well as a powerful one. Its clear that much of our citizenry is spoiled and doesn’t get it….
———————————–
Oh, but we do get it.
We get that we prefer personal freedom over being dictacted to by a House of Lourds.
We get that facist/communist/marxist/socialist movements have always been justified by promoting the “greater social good”.
We get that every facist/commuist/marxist/socialist government results in the impoverishment of the the citizenry.
We also get that our rights as individuals are given to us by God – not by Obama or Pelosi. As such, they can only be taken away if we allow them to.
We also get that the US should think for itself, and not simply be led by actions of other countries – as if they were somehow inviolate.
We also get that every “solution” to every “social problem” just COINCIDENTALLY results in the degredation of personal freedom while accuring more and more power within Washington DC.
And finally, we get that demanding that every aspect of our life not be dictated to us is not a sign of being “spoiled”, but a sign that at least some of us our not sheep.

No the primary focus is that ANYTHING he does (taking his kids for ice cream, improving conditions for returning soldiers, visiting wounded soldiers) is fascism.
Stupid.
==========================
Do you just make this stuff up in your head?
Perhaps you could address some of the points made instead?

First, I have no idea what the above has to do with anything— it strikes me as irrelevant.
As for the rest, with all due respect, you remind me of my son the morning after he’s watched a scary movie.
I suggest doing independent research and getting the facts– though I applaud your eerie and suspenseful background music. (The score adds so much, don’t you think?)
===========================
The liberals ALWAYS go to insults once the going gets a little rough.
You can count on it.
The point is – it doesn’t matter what you think about INTERPOL. They could be the greatest organization that humankind has ever put together.
What does matter if that American citizens can continue to live as free American citizens.
Here, let me help you out. Here is the 4th Amendment:
“Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Under this executive order, not only can they be searched and probed without a warrant – but nobody would ever have to know.
No local law enforcement, no state attourney general, nobody at the FBI or the CIA, could gain access to the records to find out about the activities.
This is blatantly unconstitutional and ooutrageous.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 3, 2010 8:57:49 PM
Its obvious you read far right blogs and believe everything they tell you. If that’s the way you wanna go, that’s entirely up to you as long as I don’t have to deal with ya.
God bless and have fun making scary looking mountains out of molehills. Its really no skin off me.

This is blatantly unconstitutional and ooutrageous.
Posted by: Paul |
Good luck with that argument. I have yet to hear anyone state a coherent reason why we needed this executive order. A couple of Obama apologists opined that it didn’t really change anything, oblivious that they were making my argument for me.

Maybe you guys need to make another movie or something.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Jan 3, 2010 8:37:42 PM
–
I wasn’t aware there was a movie about how the lack of health insurance and access in our country increases the likelihood of death– or how much more expensive our health care is than the health care in other countries without an equal bump in quality– or really examining what its like to be dumped for a pre-existing condition or to go bankrupt because of catastrophic costs associated with long term terminal illnesses– or how vacuous the Republicans are when it comes to coming up with innovative or even workable ideas or solutons, let alone fighting for life and health for all citizens.
I don’t think it would matter. As long as Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Krauthammer and the Koch brothers have insurance, they’ll tell the “non-sheep” to keep chasing the pure free market unicorn and to keep interpreting the constitution as if it was the early 1800s (and they’ll pass out cliff notes). Several of the reforms within the Senate and House bills actually poll well on their own.

What you have here is an attempt to simply dismiss the 4th amendment constitional concern – by being dismissive.
_______________________________
If the right wing and the Republicans had not been screeching ‘wolf!’ at everything the current administration has said or done – perhaps people would pay some mind to you.
As it is – we just think it’s more blathering from the right wing.
You blew it.

“If the right wing and the Republicans had not been screeching ‘wolf!’ at everything the current administration has said or done – perhaps people would pay some mind to you.
As it is – we just think it’s more blathering from the right wing.
You blew it.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what you are saying is, that you are not willing to address the issue head on with specifics.
Instead, you are simply going to reuse one of you standard insults.
Got it.

“See what I was saying about the insults.
…
that whole line doesn’t really work with me. What you interpret as an “insult”, I interpret as calling it as I see it, honesty, truth, being real, commenting on current trends and so on. I don’t see it as my job to babysit anyone’s interpretations, as long as I know I’m not intentionally insulting anyone — particularly people who have no problem insinuating others are either sheep or fascists and communists, or all of the above, when they are simply American liberals, and, when all is said and done, America was founded on liberal ideals.
A real American is a liberal American!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==================================
That’s a moving testimony about that innocence of your insults. It has the believablity of a 10 year old explaining how he doesn’t know how the lamp got broken, but still, an entertaining performance.
LOL at the idea that the definition of “liberal” even REMOTELY resembled the current definition of liberal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==================================
On substance, see NYT “Order on Interpol Work Inside U.S. Irks Conservatives “– “Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.
………..
Also, an fyi, the actions of law enforcement are still subject to the same Constitutional restrictions they always were—it changes nothing in that regard.Immunity isn’t a “get out of Court and evidence-sharing” free card.
”
=================================
So, why was therer a need for this executive order again, please?

Nice rant too.
..
thank you.
I did forget about Michael Moore’s movie; I don’t really care for him, and I’ve never seen it– but I stand corrected. Totally! I assumed you were talking about Al Gore’s movie, which I’ve also never seen, so I was attempting to be a smart aleck and it backfired. LOL.
That’s what I get!
As for Big Pharma and the Insurance companies– well, yeah, hmmm. That sounds wish washy because its a conundrum. They have lots of money to burn on lobbying– and I don’t see, practically speaking, how to get around them when we don’t seem very good at huge sweeping innovative change that isn’t organic (like the computer/technology revolution.) I find the figures they spend on lobbying rather stunning, actually. I would have much preferred full transparency on the negotiations. I would much prefer a different bill– but I do think several important reforms are addressed, and can lead to something better down the road. Eventually, we have to get at cost, and toward that end I’m not opposed to comprehensive tort reform that doesn’t take away patient rights when a real wrong is committed. (I agree with Howard Dean that the problem there is the tort lawyer lobby.) I don’t think that can be the sum total of it.
I don’t think the insurance companies or Big Pharma are evil. I think anything too big is hugely suspect and that they’re oriented toward maximizing profit not maximizing access and patient care. I think a non-profit single payer system would work best, with a competitive private sector market of supplements, that you buy on your own, not via your employer.
I do think Dems sold out, but for practical reasons. I do believe some progressives spoke out– so their wasn’t total silence, but there’s some merit to that accusation. Nevertheless, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with (Rolling Stones, and meaning take what you can get.)

So, the constition is more of a living document to you, right?
..
Yes. I’m glad slavery has been outlawed, women have the right to vote, Congress has the right to legislate as the world changes, and so on.
..
I wonder if you believe that individuals have any responsibilty in taking care of their own well being?
..
Absolultely. We probably interpret the parties differently as I see the Republican party as creating a nanny state for corporations and in terms of national security and Christianist morality– I find it very restricting and patriarchal, and actually very suffocating– like being in a strict moralistic fortress that wants to keep all outsiders out and pretend there’s a way to protect those inside from every ill. But lepers will be tossed to the weakest wall. I see the Democrat party as live and let live with a pragmatic type social safety net and a true grasp of liberty and justice for all– understanding true liberty means providing equal opportunity, though not necessarily equal outcomes (as we’re not all the same so the inputs wouldn’t be the same.)
..
It has the believablity of a 10 year old explaining how he doesn’t know how the lamp got broken, but still, an entertaining performance.
..
Again, your interpretation isn’t my problem — but I do like how again you make an insinuation that you’d probably call an insult if it were directed at you based on your past posts and the natural trajectory that leads from them.
…
why was therer a need for this executive order again, please?
Still haven’t researched this or read Jake’s blog post?
-”so these organizations can work throughout the world without different countries spying on each other by accessing the records of these groups.”
-So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?
He can’t believe it’s taken this long.
“To the extent that granting these immunities to INTERPOL furthers the efficacy or ease of information-sharing or joint action on an expedited basis to act on warrants
seems like a no brainer to me,” the official says.
“Conservatives can’t have it both ways,” the official says. “You can’t be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you’re complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security.”
–INTERPOL didn’t have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.
(JAKE TAPPER, THIS BLOG)

So what you are saying is, that you are not willing to address the issue head on with specifics.
__________________________________
I’m not expert on Interpol and won’t pretend to be for the sake of argument.
What I do know however is that if it is an earth shattering an issue as you profess it to be then if the right wing and the Republicans had not been screeching ‘wolf!’ at everything the current administration has said or done – perhaps people would pay some mind to you.
As it is – we just think it’s more blathering from the right wing.
You blew it.

I do think Dems sold out, but for practical reasons. I do believe some progressives spoke out– so their wasn’t total silence, but there’s some merit to that accusation. Nevertheless, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with (Rolling Stones, and meaning take what you can get.)
Posted by: There is no Planet B |
So we have a serious problem that has been made worse by government so we ask government to fix it and they come up with “reform” that really isn’t but don’t worry cause later gov’t will fix it again. To me, that is Sisyphus and “fool me twice shame on me” and “doing the same thing and expecting different results” all rolled up in to one.
btw, love the one you with is Crosby, Stills and Nash and the lyrics might also suggest ditching this bill and keeping what we got.
I think the Rolling Stones song that applies to health care reform is obvious. “Cause I try and I try and I try and I try I can’t get no Satisfaction….”

btw, love the one you with is Crosby, Stills and Nash
__________________________________
“love the one you’re with’ is Stephen Stills solo project . ..

On Fox News Sunday, top White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the administration “absolutely” intends to keep sending Guantanamo prisoners to Yemen.
What could go wrong?

tierra wrote:
__________________________________
I’m not expert on Interpol and won’t pretend to be for the sake of argument.
What I do know however is that if it is an earth shattering an issue as you profess it to be then if the right wing and the Republicans had not been screeching ‘wolf!’ at everything the current administration has said or done – perhaps people would pay some mind to you.
As it is – we just think it’s more blathering from the right wing.
You blew it.
===================================
Only in a liberal world could a person admit that they don’t know what they are talking about, not address any of the specifics at hand, and yet still feel perfectly comfortable in granting themselves a rhetorical victory with a breezy, “you blew it”.
It is unfortunate when one has gotten to the point when they are so ready to make logic disappear for sake for preserving the little world they have created for themselves in their own mind.

Nobody missed your point tierra.
But
a) it’s wrong.
b) it doesn’t have anything to do with answering the question about the constitutionality of this move, or why it was deemed necessary in the first place.
Repeating, “you blew it” only serves to underscore the shrillness of your demeanor. It does not reinforce your argument.

“Not at all, ‘you blew it’ means what it says. The right wing have been crying ‘wolf’ over every little thing the Democrats have been doing. Nobody listens anymore. Your comments have been turned into more of the same rubbish. The right wing blew it. You’ve become simply an irritating noise.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
I guess we’ll just have to keep covering this ground:
You have readily admited that you don’t know anything about this subject matter.
You may poutice your own ego with a few, “you blew it”s – but it is not germain to the question at hand whatsoever.
You are not contributing anything to this discussion; and the repeatition of an incorrect and irrelevant point probably becomes to others what you are assigning to others – irritating noise.

And that would be the proper route – say if you wanted to FORCE people to buy health insurance, as one example.
—
Max Baucus: The individual mandate is constitutional
One of the big right wing talking points of late has been that the individual mandate is not constitutional, because the constitution does not specifically say “the federal government may impose an individual mandate for the purposes of insuring all eligible Americans.” Happily, whether things are or are not constitutional is the sort of thing Senate staff check out before putting them in bills, and in a floor statement today, Baucus laid out his staff’s findings on the subject. His arguments follow the jump.
Mr. President, some of my Colleagues on the other side of the aisle have asserted that the penalty that is proposed under the bill before us for failing to maintain health coverage is unconstitutional. And the Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, has raised a point of order that is now pending.
Those of us who voted to proceed to the health reform bill and who voted for cloture on the substitute amendment take seriously our oath to support and defend the Constitution. And we have looked at this question seriously and concluded that the penalty is constitutional.
And those who study constitutional law as a line of work have drawn that same conclusion. Most legal scholars who have considered the question of a requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage argue forcefully that the requirement is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
Take Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a renowned constitutional law scholar, author of four popular treatises and casebooks on constitutional law, and Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law. Professor Chemerinsky has gone so far to say that those arguing on the other side of the issue do not have “the slightest merit from a constitutional perspective.”
In arguing that a requirement to have health coverage falls within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Professor Chemerinsky compares health care reform to the case of Gonzales v. Raich — often cited by the other side.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government’s Commerce Clause powers extend to the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Professor Chemerinsky notes that the relationship between health care coverage and the national economy is even clearer than the cultivation and possession involved in Gonzales v. Raich.
[...]
As a second example, I refer my colleagues to an article by Mark Hall, law professor at Wake Forest University. Professor Hall’s article is a comprehensive, peer-reviewed analysis of the constitutionality of a Federal individual responsibility requirement.
In it, Professor Hall concludes that there are no plausible Tenth Amendment or States’ rights issues arising from the imposition by Congress of an individual responsibility to maintain health coverage.
Professor Hall notes further that health care and health insurance both affect and are distributed through interstate commerce. And that gives Congress the power to legislate a coverage requirement using its Commerce Clause powers.
Professor Hall notes that the Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez — two other cases relied on by the other side — that the non-economic, criminal nature of the conduct in those cases was central to the court’s decisions in those cases that the Government had not appropriately exercised power under the Commerce Clause.
Health insurance, on the other hand, does not deal with criminal conduct. Health insurance is commercial and economic in nature and, to reiterate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy. National health spending is 17.6 percent of the economy. And it is projected to increase from $2.5 trillion in 2009 to $4.7 trillion in 2019.
Private health insurance spending is projected to be $854 billion in 2009. It covers things like medical supplies, drugs, and equipment that are shipped in interstate commerce.
Health insurance is sold by national or regional health insurance carriers. Thus health insurance is sold in interstate commerce. As well, claims payments flow through interstate commerce.
The individual responsibility requirement, together with other provisions in the Act, will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply of, and demand for, health care services.
Under existing health and labor laws, the Federal Government has a significant role in regulating health insurance.
Other prominent legal scholars have also said that Congress has the constitutional authority to impose a requirement on individuals to maintain health coverage.
Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, has stated:
“In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of ‘commerce’ as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate.”
Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center similarly concluded:
“The fundamental point behind pushing people into the private insurance market is to make sure that uninsured individuals who can pay for health insurance don’t impose costs on other tax payers.”
Professor Michael Dorf of the Cornell University Law School noted that:
“[T]he individual mandate is ‘plainly adapted’ to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional.”
And Robert Shapiro, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, stated:
“Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the individual mandate, or of health care reform generally, it would be surprising if the Constitution prohibited a democratic resolution of the issue. Happily, it does not.”
Thus, Mr. President, the weight of authority is that health care and insurance represents interstate commerce. And the individual responsibility requirement to maintain coverage would be within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
By Ezra Klein | December 22, 2009 (WaPo)
SEE ALSO The Constitutionality of health care, LA Times:

“I’m sure whatever you had to say about American politics was crucial Paul, but the problem is exactly as described . . . the right wing has been crying ‘wolf’ so long nobody in their right mind pays them any attention anymore.
So attempts to alert the country to the coming fascist, dictatorship are noble, but ineffectual. It’s just more screeching noises on the right wing’s hysterical blackboard of fear, paranoia and hate.
We’ve won.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
So again, you CAN’T address the specific issue, so grant yourself a general claim of victory.
Ridiculous, but not unexpected from you at this point. Only in the liberal mind could this be substituted as an actual acceptable answer to a specific issue.

To see what I’m talking about, please check the ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO piece from the WSJ, Sept. 15th:
“…..Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.
One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.
…….
James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”
The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.
The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined “to keep regular” the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.
That’s right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person’s appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.
…………..”
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama’s health-care proposal, it’s clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

To see what I’m talking about, please check the ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO piece from the WSJ, Sept. 15th
—
I’ve read it and its been picked apart by many constitutional scholars. To me the argument is a matter of throwing the kitchen sink at health care as part of the Republican strategy–deny, delay, derail, blah, blah, blah.

“I’ve read it and its been picked apart by many constitutional scholars. To me the argument is a matter of throwing the kitchen sink at health care as part of the Republican strategy–deny, delay, derail, blah, blah, blah.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sure you have found plenty of people who would “pick apart” Napolitano’s argument. But it doesn’t mean they actually puzzled out his sound reasoning, more than just got frothy at the mouth and made some hilarious snide remarks in the process.
Let’s look at the language in Section 8 of the Constitution that is being referred to here:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
That’s it. “To regulate Commerce … among the several States”.
From this, we are supposed to believe that Congress is somehow granted the authority to make people buy insurance. Could someone tell me how this can be read in a way that it allows Congress to FORCE people to buy anything?
If this allows them to FORCE people to buy insurance, can they also force people to buy other items? Cars? Boats? Dentures? Sham-wow’s?
If not, please explain why not.

This is proof positive that U.S. Intelligence is Mentally Rigid, Perceptually Opaque and Barren of Imagination. U.S. Intelligence knew about the August Attempt on Saudi Prince Mohammed, knew about the PETN “explosives in the underwear” method of that attempt, and all homeland security adviser John Brennan can think of to stress is that “We were looking very carefully at that. There was no indication at the time that there was going to be an attempt against an aircraft.” (verbatim echo of post-9\11 excuses). Brennan told ABC News “There was no indication, though, that al Qaeda was trying to use that type of attack and that modus operandi against aircraft.” This exposes the pure idiocy embedded in the U.S. Intelligence mentality. It’s like responding to a lethal terrorist attack by saying, “Yes, we knew about al Qaeda terrorist strategies around the World, BUT . . . at that time, there was absolutely no evidence that would lead us to believe they would be wearing blue pin-striped suits instead of the customary turban and white robes. There was simply no way we could have anticipated that.” There’s one helluva lot of ‘numb nuts’ in the U.S. Intelligence community, at the highest levels, who should be minimum wage Pickerton security guards at a K-mart store. This article is very, very troubling indeed.

It was about the constitutionality of his executive order to grant immunity to INTERPOL. And what the point of such an action would be in the first place. Posted by: Paul
Jake wrote a good post on it, of course, you’re very wrong in your assumptions, try and find it somewhere on political punch archives.
you could possibly, learn something that’s not based on rightwing rhetoric

“I’m sure you have found plenty of people who would “pick apart” Napolitano’s argument. But it doesn’t mean they actually puzzled out his sound reasoning, more than just got frothy at the mouth and made some hilarious snide remarks in the process.
Let’s look at the language in Section 8 of the Constitution that is being referred to here:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
That’s it. “To regulate Commerce … among the several States”.
From this, we are supposed to believe that Congress is somehow granted the authority to make people buy insurance. Could someone tell me how this can be read in a way that it allows Congress to FORCE people to buy anything?
If this allows them to FORCE people to buy insurance, can they also force people to buy other items? Cars? Boats? Dentures? Sham-wow’s?
If not, please explain why not.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can somebody answer this in their own words?
It’s great that you can quote a “constitutional scholar”. But we also ought to be able to look at a few sentences and reason this out a little bit for ourselves.
Again, can you please, in your own words, tell me how the interstate commerce clause can be used to FORCE people to buy something?
Again for those that believe that they can, I ask, can congress FORCE people to Sham-wow’s and Slap-Chops?
Why or why not?

tell me how the interstate commerce clause can be used to FORCE people to buy something?
—
I disagree with how you frame it. The question is can Congress levy taxes and exempt those who buy health insurance? You are not being “forced” to do anything– you are being taxed if you don’t take advantage of an exemption. From that frame, Congress’ Article I Sec. 8 power to tax and spend is the one to look at. It can be argued that Congress is absolutely entitled to raise revenues from people whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare is
one of the broadest powers in the Constitution–AND its used as the basis for the Social Security Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program.
The other constitutional power granted to Congress that comes into play is the “commerce” clause, which has traditionally been given a broad definition by the Supreme Court– and, just a btw, nobody in their right mind skips the case law. While some legal scholars say a mandate is constitutional and others say its not, very, very few think the Supreme Court with strike it down. Health insurance can absolutely be described as having a substantial relation to or impact upon interstate commerce.
Its silly to me that one wouldn’t look at the case law and what experts say on the case law to reason through this– but its pretty clear that the commerce clause would cover all of the bill, and probably the mandate too, but if not the mandate, it would structured to pass via the tax and spend power.

I’m sorry, but the government of the country is based on the Constitution of the United States. It is perfectly legitimate to look at that document – DIRECTLY – and search out whether Congress of the Executive branch are exceeding their boundaries.
And by the way, the fact that they have been allowed to repeatedly exceed their boundaries in the past in no way justifies any new, additional abuses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The other constitutional power granted to Congress that comes into play is the “commerce” clause…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the clause I’ve been asking you about, which you will not address directly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“You are not being “forced” to do anything– you are being taxed if you don’t take advantage of an exemption. From that frame, Congress’ Article I Sec. 8 power to tax and spend is the one to look at. It can be argued that Congress is absolutely entitled to raise revenues from people whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So again, can the Congress levy a punitive tax on people who don’t buy “Slap-Chops”?
If you want to frame this measure as merely a tax revenue question (which each and every honest person will candidly admit that it is NOT) then you have now have an additional Constitutional problem:
The beginning of section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States;”
Note the word UNIFORM there. UNIFORM means to be even – throughout the population. Therefore, congress has no right to dictate the behavior of it’s citizens through punitive taxation.
But again, candidly, this is not a revenue bill – although it is going to hurt a lot of people in the wallet.
This Constitution provides no mechanism ffor this congress to make these mandates on American citizens.
It just doesn’t.

Okay, so let’s look at the commerce clause again. The fact of the matter is that Congress has the power and precedent through the commerce clause to regulate nearly any aspect of the national economy. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones– and one can look at a mandate as regulation.
But, the question, conservatives say, is does the commerce clause cover an individual’s refusal to engage in interstate commerce? Well, it will be argued that yes, it does, because when a person declines to purchase health insurance, that affects interstate commerce, too, by driving up health insurance premiums for everyone else. Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, it has been established that Congress is entitled to raise revenues from people whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs.
So, basically you can look at the individual mandate as a regulation or a tax. Our tax code, btw, is riddled with regulatory provisions. Surely, you realize that.
As for individual rights and the emotion that brings with it, the truth is under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There is no fundamental right to remain uninsured– though you still will be able to do just that.
Its worth noting Massachusetts’ individual mandate hasn’t been contested on the basis of Constitutionality, also– AND that the individual mandate is uniform– it applies to everyone.

“You’re just consulting the Constitution and you’re own brain and worldview and your tendency to interpret things in a given way (as we are all wont to do) and putting forth your opinion and thinking everybody should agree, even if analogous cases, in part, have been decided another way by the Supreme Court– right? ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
“You got that right.”
- Dred Scott

“Okay, so let’s look at the commerce clause again. The fact of the matter is that Congress has the power and precedent through the commerce clause to regulate nearly any aspect of the national economy. ”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which is to say, we could go full blast socialism with a simple majority on a single bill.
Right.
Here is the commerce clause again
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Such blanket authority is not even sniffed at in those words.
Sorry.

“As for individual rights and the emotion that brings with it, the truth is under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There is no fundamental right to remain uninsured– though you still will be able to do just that.
Its worth noting Massachusetts’ individual mandate hasn’t been contested on the basis of Constitutionality, also– AND that the individual mandate is uniform– it applies to everyone.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s good to know that the protection of indidivual rights is merely an emmotional issue. We wouldn’t want those pesky indivual freedoms to get in the way of “the greater social good”.
And thanks for declaring for us that the right to buy, or not buy insurance is not a “fundamental” right. It’s good to know that your on duty clarifying for us what our God-given rights are – appreciate it.
Many problems with your allusion to Mass.
1) The rights of states are not the same as the rights of Congress. We’ve been discussing the rights of congress.
2) Using the LACK of a challange from the most liberal state in the union is in no way evidence that the rights of individuals have not been violated.
3) Mass. has blown their budget with their socialized medical mandate. They have blasted past the cost estimates that they used while justifying the socialist policy.
Thanks for reminding all of the readers here about what a bad idea this really is.

It’s good to know that the protection of indidivual rights is merely an emmotional issue
—
Merely is your word, not mine, and you’re using it as “solely.” Again, we get into your interpretation thing, which strikes me as prone toward black and white, or all or nothing thinking, minimizing other’s points, and some catastrophizing.
I think discussions about individual rights are often passionate and emotion comes into play. Do you disagree? Can you see how that doesn’t mean that’s the only thing driving the discussion– you projected that onto the conversation, imho.
Anywho, gotta roll. Have a pleasant day.

In none of the comments below has PlanB addressed any of the points that have been made – particularly the Constitutional ones.
I will take this moment to clarify something – Saying that “the Supreme Court is not likely overturn….” is not the same thing as saying that something is Constitutional.
Your dependance on precedent is based on the fact that you can’t make a direct reading of the actual Constitution itself and have any hope of justifying your position.
The question at hand is – does the Constitution grant the authority – not will the Supreme Court overturn it.
I will again refer you to the Dred Scott decision as an object lessen in treating Supreme Court jurisprudance as inviolate.
———–
And AGAIN – does the Congress have the authority to FORCE citizens to buy “Slap-Chops”? How about “Snuggies”? How about live chickens?
Why or why not?

“To recap, for me, the question is does Congress have broad Constitutional power and precedent to tax and regulate. The answer is yes. From there the question is does that power apply to the health insurance industry? The answer is yes? And could it apply to an individual mandate? And the answer is absolutely– that is dependent on how it is framed, worded, worked out. Lastly, does that have anything to do with slap-chops or snuggies? Only in far right partisan obfuscater’s worlds. (The goal there is to deny, derail, etc.)”
++++++++++++++++++++++
You’re kidding, right? Do I honestly have to explain the point?
Okay – here goes.
Today – you and congress have a passion for health care. You beleive you are doing what’s good for everyone by mandating that they buy health insurance.
So you are arguing that, based on the commerce clause, congress has the right to do this. (Of course they do not – and you haven’t been able to quote the constitution back – and explain how it could possibly do so – but whatever.)
Now then, the question becomes, if you have established in your mind that congress can, in fact force a citizen to buy one thing – in this case health insurance – then is the any limit on what else they would be forced to buy?
Snuggies and Slap Chops are great examples because they seem ridiculous. But you are establishing a principle that seems to have no limit.
If Congress can force citizens to buy health care – then why can’t they force them to buy anything else?
Your argument takes us down a road of a congress with virtually limitless power to control every aspect of every financial decision that every individual makes.
That you can’t see (or refuse to) the implications of beyond principle beyond this current debate is not suprising.
But it is very dangerous.
The congress of limitless power that exists in your mind does not exist in the Constitution.

So you are arguing that, based on the commerce clause, congress has the right to do this. (Of course they do not – and you haven’t been able to quote the constitution back – and explain how it could possibly do so – but whatever.)
—
I’d actually argue that the tax power combined with regulation is how you get there. And I explained how I’d frame it in my first post on this topic, but I can tell you’re not willing to grapple honestly with anything that doesn’t fit your view.
Now then, good luck with the rigid ideology James.

“Frame” – which is to say “spin”.
You, and the dems in Congress call it a tax because you think it gives you cover.
It is a fine. For not following a federal mandate.
And you can’t actually look at the actual words of the Constitution and provide any evidence of such authority.
You make a general declaration that is supposed to somehow pass as gospel. But you can’t seem to back it up in any way. Your simple declaration doesn’t pass as reinforcement of your argument.
I will again refer you to the 9th Amendment:
“Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And again, I will ask you – is it your position that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy “Slap-Chops”?

I read with pleasure your article thanks