Sunday Morning Smackback

Along the lines of my last series of posts regarding Peter (the Rat) DeFazio, and the willingness of democrats to sell out their constituency,  this morning on Prof.  Jacobson's site he asks the following question:

"What if Barack Obama were not President, and Democrats did not control Congress. Would liberals be so willing to give the federal government this sweeping power?"

My answer to this would be:  Well, yeah, duh.

Here is the proof, in part.  The voting record for the 2001 NCLB act: 

No Child Left Behind.

Clearly the vote was bilateral.  Clearly the bill was socialistic.  Clearly the Democrat Party is mostly full of progressive spenders...and, CLEARLY SO IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.  Please keep trying to sell us on the idea that the Democrats are the only anti-American party.  Please!

For sure, Prof. Jacobson sees the health care reform bill as more of a "sweeping" power grab, and in terms of dollars, he is right, but in terms of importance, he's a million miles off.  Why is it that the democrats hid behind children in their fight to justify this health care reform?  Because, we all know the power the child wields in political discourse, as political tools.  And we all know why they can constantly get away with it.

Next, we could talk about the "sweeping" superfascistic powers granted to the executive via The Patriot Act.  But it's Sunday, and I'll not use the Lord's name in vain today, which inevitably happens when I talk about that Godda--

Ugh.

All that said, I'll also take note of Prof. Jacobson's points made via Randy Barnett and simply say that, yes, I agree: the health care bill is unconstitutional.  And that is the real issue here.  HOW a thing is unconstitutional is less important to me than the fact that it IS unconstitutional, in the end.  And in the end, a vast array of legislation that has come out of Washington--from BOTH sides of the isle--goes against the grain of the Constitution.  That, is the problem.

And that is it.  That is all.