Rep. Jackson has the answer – amend the US Constitution to include everything!
Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr (D-Ill.) needs to seek professional help. This is from last week, but it’s just too good to pass up. By the stroke of the pen, Jackson is convinced he can solve all of the problems in the United States. Simply amend the Constitution to guaranty everyone gets a “decent home” and you’ve solved the housing issue!
Scroll for update…
No, you can’t watch the video first. Read on…
Jackson thinks if you amend the Constitution to include the “right” to a decent home, everyone will get a decent home and a bunch of jobs will be created in the process. Make health care a “right” and all the people will be taken care of and tons of people will become doctors and nurses. Make a decent education a “right” and everyone will be smart and we’ll be building tons of schools all over the place.
He thinks everyone should be guaranteed an iPod and a laptop too.
It solves every problem we have. Pure genius I tell ya!
Rep. Jackson … who the hell is going to pay for all of it? You’ve got the definition of a “right” totally wrong, where Walter Willams got the definition of a right, exactly right a year ago in one of his great columns.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
And here’s comment number one from Patterico’s Pontifications post on the same.
Unicorns dammit! I want Unicorns! I hear they sh*t skittles too.
Update: Allapundit at Hot Air points us to Ace of Spades. Drew W took a look at the Congressional Record and dug out this gem, not included in the video clip.
I asked the Congressional Research Service the other day how many jobs are tied to the First Amendment, that amendment added to the Constitution in 1791 by the founders of our Republic. You know what they told me? Congressman, it is impossible to calculate how many jobs are tied to the First Amendment.
I said: Impossible to calculate? I said: Why?
He said because to be an American is tied to the First Amendment. He said: Congressman, you must understand–which I did–that all corporate activity in America is First Amendment activity.
Jackson figures every job is a result of the 1st Amendment. More from DrewW…
[T]he First Amendment is not a grant of power to the government is a restriction of power against the government (“Congress shall make no law….”). Yet this genius'[Jackson] solution is to create a whole bunch of “rights” that would empower the government to do all sorts of things and thereby usher in a level of prosperity never before seen in the history of the world. In reality, it’s the fact that the government is limited in power and scope (or was at one time) that the genius of free men and women was unleashed to provide goods and services their fellow citizens wanted at a price they agreed upon.
In Jackson’s World, simply let the government guarantee what your wants are and magically they will appear.
This guy is a Righty! Now where do I go for comfort! I know, that will be a new RIGHT!
How did this ignorant clod ever get elected? Oh yeah…..
I guess the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
Knowing that he did get elected is the scary part. And it seems like more and more who share his beliefs get elected each cycle.
His contituents are the antithesis of this nation!
I'm actually curious if any of the recent union supporters who have posted will comment on a post like this, or if they are just a one-trick pony. Wonder if they can blame the unreasonable Jackson ideas on the Koch brothers some how.
A shakedown artist – just like his father. They make a living by enslaving their constituents to dependency.
Curious, was the chamber (hopefully) empty? If not were the other brilliant constitutional scholars/defenders simply to dumbstruck to respond? Or not…
Both sides have their extremists, don't they??
I do not see many dems agreeing with him, even those who lean more to the left.
And on the right we have GA State Rep Bobby Franklin,
he has introduced legislation to ban the state from requiring vaccines, legislation banning income tax, legis. requiring GA taxpayers to pay ONLY in gold and silver.
And, his latest (just introduced last month) , most horrifying gem, GA HB 1 requiring a woman PROVE that she had a natural miscarriage-or be charged with a felony!!!
I don't think many on the right would side with this nutbag-well, hope not.
How did HE ever get elected-scary.
(I believe we are on topic re: extremists)
Here's the problem with your premise that both sides have their extremists in this case. During the past few decades – really since FDR's suggestion of a "second bill of rights" – the liberals/progressive/statists out there have been incrementally doing exactly what Rep. Jackson is suggesting.
They throw billions at education from the federal level with strings attached. They throw untold billions at the housing issue through HUD from the federal level. We've even got mainstream progressives demanding we spend more money – so called stimulus funding – at the federal level since we have to create or save jobs!
This video of Rep Jackson is not a representation of the "extreme" left, this IS the left.
I am forced to think of the old Conan O'Brien sketch "If they mated…." with Je$$e Junior and Sheila Jackson Lee….
Too bad the lefty media only notices the "right wing extremists"…
Sticking to Walter Williams: people balk at the notion of being "forced" to buy health insurance. Why should I be "forced" to pay for health care for people who refuse to buy insurance??
Are you suggesting conservatives think you should be forced to pay for another's health care if they do not have insurance? If so, you're wrong.
I don't speak for all conservatives of course, but I still can't figure out your point.
Nor I. It is the same as if you don't buy flood insurance: don't buy it, then don't complain when there are boats in your living room. Don't come crawling to the rest of us (the government) when the fertilizer hits the fan. On the other side of the coin, if you can afford to cover the damage yourself, for that odd 100 year storm, then why should you be forced to subsidize everyone else?
Is this guy serious or is he using hyperbole to drive home a point? God help us….
ok, just watched again. The guy is serious. They tried this in USSR. It didn't work.. If I hear one more time about "it will save/create jobs" as justification for doing something I am going to scream. You don't build high speed rail to create jobs, you don't hand out iPods to create jobs. What happens when everyone has an ipod or a "decent" home. BTW I define decent as 5000 sq.ft. new construction.
@ Crystal4…Have you actually read GA HB1? I have…and nowhere in the text is there anything resembling the language you spout here ("requiring a woman PROVE that she had a natural miscarriage-or be charged with a felony!!!"). Here is the text from the current version of the bill for anyone who is interested (http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb1.htm):
(2) 'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event."
I believe that the language contained in this bill pertains to doctors and their responsibility to their patients which, in the case of an ob/gyn, includes the unborn child. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But as to Rep. Bobby Franklin being a nutbag, I'm pretty sure that most people here wouldn't consider writing legislation protecting the life of an unborn child to be a "nutbag" move.
The British equivalent is "pillock" i believe.
'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.
(c) The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.
(d) Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1.
BTW, Winnie is not on point-just responding to her, lol.
I agree. Please make an attempt to keep comments on-topic.
Really? Tattling? Give me a break. I was responding to your "nutbag" reference which referred to the post. What and evah.
There has got to be something in Chicago's water.
I must say that this fellow is proof that ANYONE can be a congress-critter.
He and ALan Keyes are opposites in more than just political party
Homer Simpson's mayoral campaign slogan was "Let someone else do it!" He won office on promises of cradle to grave government care but then encountered unexpected revenue problems.
Obama's campaign slogan should have been, "Let your grand-kids pay for it!"
That is the problem today. Too many folks have this entitlement attitude. This country was founded on a person's right to work and earn a good living for themselves. Our pioneers worked hard to better themselves and gave the next generation a better country. Today we have a bunch of wimps who want to be supported by those who work and the government. This is called socialism. Just a look at history shows socialism doesn't work. Look at Sweden, Norway, Holland. They are all bankrupt!!!! My solution is get off your asses and work for your own house, ipod, etc. I have a solution for the U.S. and it would save us taxpayers money. No more welfare as those on it know it. No more rent subsidies for the generations of welfare. Let them live in state owned housing with their elec. and heat paid. But not an apt more than they need…3 rooms. They would get NO monies paid to them each month. They would have to work to live there even if it was at a minimum wage job. Their children would be put in daycare center at the housing and it would be staffed by others who are on welfare instead of the state paying for their care as they do now. In other words you work for what you get or go live in a tent city set up for those who choose not to be productive. I am tired of generational welfare and people sitting on their asses collecting monies. The same would go for unemployment…you collect 16 weeks and then your off regardless. There are jobs out there but maybe not at what pay they had. Maybe you will have to work 3 part time jobs…and cut your expenses; but, it can be done if you live within your means. I am so tired of these entitlement programs. And Jesse Jackson is the poster child for the black communities attitude of we should support them! People need to take responsibility for their actions and deal with their choices. It is not my problem to support you if you are a drug-addict, drunk, or uneducated person. You make your own choices so live with them!
The brilliant Walter Williams is, as always, spot on.
The individual mandate to buy health insurance is mostly to cover the uninsured and, to a much lesser extent, pay for the expensive care of others. Its the same thing the insurance does now, except not everyone participates. The alternative to the mandate, though, is for doctors and hospitals to turn people away that have no health insurance. If we, as a society are ready to do that, then there should be no mandate, but if not, then the only alternative we have to the mandate is what we have now, which is clearly not working.
In our forefathers' fight for liberty and freedom, Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths (undeniable facts) to be self-evident (obvious), that all men (mankind) are created equal (come into being on this earth by nature with inherent potential, no better, no worse than another), that they are endowed (given to and not confiscatable) with certain (specific) unalienable (cannot not be taken away, forfeited) Rights (privileges or givens), that among these are Life (born and unborn), Liberty (Freedom), and the pursuit of Happiness (Comfort, earnings, shelter, clothing food, etc. The things that make us Happy)."
Notice that one word. Jefferson had such forethought to not say "the right to Happiness" but the pursuit of Happiness.
If you want or need an iPod or a laptop, you may pursuit the endeavor to obtain one but, not be given one by confiscation of another person's pursuit of Happiness.
Maybe Mr. Jackson should read the D. of I. over again for "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (governed by the people) it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it (Government), and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form…" Meaning, bring it back to its Basic form.
Just realized I forgot the most important part:
"by their Creator" that's pretty much self-explanatory
Steve I can't believe what I read, No tooth fairy, no easter bunny and no santa claus come on next you'll be saying there's no money trees and there has to be some because the wizards of smart in Washington spend money like it grows on trees. Oh I forgot they got the printing presses and they pick our pockets, thats just like having a money tree.