Kathleen Sebelius’ Constitutional Ignorance
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary and former Governor of Kansas Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House Education and Workforce Committee about the contraceptive mandate, which many have decried as an unconstitutional intrusion into religious freedom. Her testimony revealed a lack of knowledge regarding the document she is sworn to uphold and protect.
While questioning Sebelius about the mandate, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina noted that she had previously said:
I believe the proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.
Regarding that comment, Gowdy asked:
There are only three balancing tests that I am aware of when it comes to matters of constitutional significance. There is the rational basis balancing test for economic legislation. There is the intermediate or mid-level scrutiny for gender-related constitutional issues. And then there is the heightened or strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are involved, and given that the fact that I’m sure you concede that religious liberty is a fundamental right, which of those three constitutional balancing tests were you making reference to when you said you “balanced things”?
Her response:
Congressman, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests.
In a telephone interview Friday, Gowdy said that he had looked up a video from last year of Sebelius being questioned on the constitutionality of the individual mandate:
[She used] the exact same words: “I’m not a lawyer.”
Gowdy does not accept the explanation:
You don’t have to be an attorney to check with the solicitor general … or your boss who claims to be a constitutional scholar.
Gowdy also noted that President Barack Obama doesn’t appear interested in adherence to the Constitution:
For a guy who claims to be a constitutional scholar, he sure seems to show disdain for the document.
At the hearing, Gowdy had additional questions for Sebelius:
Do you agree with me that the government cannot force religious beliefs on its citizens?
She replied:
Yes, sir.
Gowdy:
And why can they not do that?
After hesitating, Sebelius mentioned “the separation of church and state.”
There is no such language in the First Amendment. During the telephone interview, Gowdy noted:
Separation of church and state is not in the First Amendment, there’s the establishment clause and the free exercise clause — maybe she read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Gowdy said he was more than a little stunned at some of Sebelius’ answers:
My goal was to have a conversation about her mandate without using the word contraception. Because if it’s contraception this week it’ll be something else next week. I was a little surprised she didn’t think it was a constitutional issue, because how could it be anything but? It makes it tough when you’ve sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution when you don’t know what it says.
Additionally, he said the birth control mandate is a “tawdry, transparent, patently political ploy,” and added that he has both a wife and a daughter and doesn’t “need lectures from her about women’s health.”
Gowdy said he’s not expecting Sebelius to come to an understanding of a citizen’s constitutional rights or the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and the contraceptive mandate:
I’d settle for her understanding our religious liberties are not to be balanced with anything.
Gowdy’s epic takedown of Sebelius is online in various places. Everyone should see it.
Next time, she might be asked to respond to this James Madison quote:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Here’s a link to the video of Gowdy’s questioning of Sebelius. She was clearly relieved when the chair announced that Gowdy’s time was up!
It’s very clear that the Congress and their regulatory minions give little or no regard whatsoever to the constitutionality of what passes from their hallowed halls and they appear genuinely gob-smacked when confronted with the realities of the constitutional limits on their powers to legislate.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/video-sebelius-gets-schooled-on-health-care/
Sebelius is an apostate and former catholic. She is extremely angry and hateful towards those who still profess the religion she once practiced. Obama has used her as his frontman to attack the Catholic Church and other Christians who will not bow down and worship the American progressive secular state.
I used to think Nancy Pelosi was the most evil woman in America, but now I think Sebelius is. Pelosi is an airhead. Sebelius is crafty, cunning, and manipulative and very dangerous.
Here is my essay on the conflicting meanings of the word “secular” in today’s political discourses. One can criticize statism without changing the meaning of that word, which is institutionalized as the First Amendment. See http://clarespark.com/2012/04/01/secularism-and-the-affordable-care-act/.
At present we are governed by a group of ignorant narcissists.
Does Sebelius think only lawyers are qualified to have opinions about the Constitution?
Good question — it’s a frickin’ 4-page document. ALL federal civil servants should be required to pass a test on it — IN ENGLISH — before they get their job.
Let’s add voters and candidates to that list!
The problem is not so much that Sebelius is ignorant of the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution is not taught in school. And really hasn’t been for a long time. After all, her boss has expressed displeasure that the Warren Court didn’t go beyond the Constitution in establishing a social welfare state.
The problem is not so much that Sebelius is ignorant of the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution is not taught in school.
To me the problem is that the RINOs don’t constantly explain that the Founders wrote the Constitution to meet an explicitly stated reading comprehension level about equivalent to a current day high school diploma. Aimed at the farmers and shopkeepers of the time, it was crafted for Everyman to be able to quickly read and clearly understand. Brief and clear, as in unequivocal. That’s what it is, like a black rule book stuffed in the hip pocket of an NFL official. What the crowd say doesn’t count, rules are rules, and the rules in the CONSTITUTion are the only ones that matter.
When the Progressives pronounced the Constitution a “living” document, it was effectively declared dead. Since then it’s been under constant assault by lawyers spouting important sounding bullsheet and news entertainers acting as if Everyman is unqualified to understand the thing, and therefore they have no choice but to go on to and dutifully give “living document” definition, which is of course absolutely false.
So sad. So inexusable. So very damaging.
I cannot speak for all schools but I can assure you that I and many other well qualified teaching professionals have most certainly taught our students the Constitution! Whether we realize it or not, we all intuitively know what the Constitution means because the Founders wrote about the real human heart and mind. This, if we stop and reflect, forces us to come to terms with the simplicity, beauty, and truth of our cherished document. You do NOT need some Harvard-educated scholar to “explain” the meaning of the Constitution to you. A simple reading and common human thought will certainly reveal the truths contained in those words.
Comforting, another ignoramus in power. You would think a governor of a state and cabinet oficial would read the founding document, as well some of the historic cases and commentaries, of all people. No, she’s a leftist and really doesn’t think that’s important. She has a point, power lust makes up it’s own rules as it goes along, anything that fits. She has plenty of company.
I”m not sure she’d read the Kansas Constitution when she was Governor.
Yet another person in this administration that does not prepare for hearings and interviews. This is supposed to be a Democratic administration, but it’s like no bunch of Democrats ever seen, before. Perhaps they should have re-thought throwing out their Liberals.
Valerie,
Why should one have to prepare when one can just make stuff up as they go along? That’s what everyone in the Administration does!
– just something that happened to other people.
Well in order to explain the constitution to a liberal you should use the circumstances of a traffic stop by a police officer. Suppose you were speeding above the posted speed limit or weaving through traffic (failure to maintain lane) ir you were intoxicated (drunk). Do you follow the law wgich is sort of a constitution?
Well according to Barack and other liberals (marxists or communists) then that all depends on who you are and what your political connections are! You can speed all you want if you give to the party in power and have the right bumper stickers on your car, if not yo go to court and pay the fine plus court costs for the judge to even have to bother to hear or see your case.
Justice is blind, bullshit ask Jessee Jacson or Al not so Sharpton, justice is what they want an outcome to be not reality!
What’s happening in our government is the statists are going about trying to make laws that are outside the Constitution. That much is clear. What is less clear and maybe the moose in the room is that they are not only blatantly ignorant of what is/is not constitutional, they believe that they are the charter group of elitists tasked with “fundamentally transforming America”.
This means making laws that suit their particular warped sense of justice and fairness. The Constitution is ignored because, “Hey, we’re the government; We can do anything we want. When it was republicans, they did whatever THEY wanted.”
This, of course is their belief but it is patently and flatly wrong. Republicans NEVER “did whatever they wanted to do” and lo and behold, if something even had a scent of “unconstitutionality” to it, the leftwing moonbats would be all over it like a bad paint job, citing this case and that, and turning up the flame to ten.
Sebelius, like all other relativists believe that history began the year they were born and in a more relative sense, just five minutes ago and because the evil republicans got things through the muckmire of government legally and adroitly, the left feels it can do whatever it takes to “get things done” regardless of legality, constitutionality or even good sense. Why? Because ideology is paramount! One has to sit there in a hearing and spout the leftist belief, even if it leaves you naked which is always.
In one sense, our current rendition of government, coupled with the huge advantage of the internet, has exposed the communist/socialists in-situ and permanently. They self-identify with regularity. Brian Williams last night doing the “Communist Hour” with such broad and happy smiles at what a macho thing “Obama did” while had it still been Bush or any republican, no such prime-time TV hour would have taken place.
It’s very interesting that. Take the same exact course of events, but have a republican president vs. a socialist and voila, you have an hour of prime-time TV not otherwise occupied. They sure do love themselves. Not each other, mind you…just themselves. Brian Williams though was fawning over the wretched Hillary and Hillary was fawning over herself.
Kinda makes ya sick, dunnit?
You refer to barry as a “Constitutional scholar”; perhaps you should have added “self-proclaimed”, since we have no idea what, in fact, he studied during his years in school (Except for Koranic studies as a child in Indonesia.). That being said, his only interest in the Constitution has always been as a means to circumvent everything–and anything–the document espouses and stands for.
Ok, Sebelliues isn’t a lawyer and doesn’t have any appreciation for the founding document which defines her rights.
But her f’n job is overseeing a major government organization which must have a legal department. You know, lawyers advising the organization on the legality of it’s actions? She didn’t have these folks take a gander at her regulations and provide an opinion? Curious why she doesn’t mention either their confirmation/rejection of it’s legality. Or why she didn’t bother to utilize her employees in the process.
Very likely the HHS legal section is as filled with left-leaners as the Justice Department. Even lawyers take different views of the Constitution, from literalists to those who cite original intent to those who believe in a malleable ‘living’ document. Odds are someone told her it was okay.
For example, Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsberg is a legal scholar.
In regards to her seemingly ill-prepared statements concerning the constitutionality, I would submit to you that she did not plan to defend the administrations actions. She simply answered the call to come and felt as if that was all she needed to do. I mean after all, she knows better than we the people how to govern our lives.
Not only that sly one, under barrycare, the Secretary of Health is given unprescendented powers & in many instances is permitted to act unilaterally, without any interference from Congress. Scary thought.
Would someone please explain why the Secretary of Health is a former governor, and not an M.D.? It has never made sense to me.
The current SOH is from the great State of Kansas. Obama is/was obviously trying to gain votes in the heartland.
I’d try, if someone could explain to me why the position “Secretary of HHS” is permitted to exist in the Federal government.
Bingo!
Before she was governor here she was Insurance Commissioner.
I saw the entire video of Gowdy destroying Sebelius. He had a great understanding of the Constitution and of the individual rights people are supposed to have. When Romney wins in November, Gowdy should be made Attorney General. It would be a refreshing change to have somebody in that position who actually follows what the Constitution says, rather than a guy like Eric Holder who takes every opportunity he has to trash the Constitution and the people who are trying to defend it.
NOOOOO! We want him to remain in the House and take a leadership role!
Don’t worry, when Romney wins, he’ll be all about the Constitution, such as his support for gutting it via the Patriot Act, NDAA, unconstitutional wars, and gun grabbing.
…I’m just kidding. Romney can’t beat Obama. Only constitutionalist Ron Paul can beat Obama.
Idiot.
Explain why I am an idiot. I’m not the one who pushes for Romney, who is so similar on big issues as Obama hat if they have a debate neither will have anything to say.
Maybe they’ll argue about who loves Goldman Sachs more.
Obama: “I love Goldman Sachs more!”
Romney: “No, I do!”
Or maybe they’ll do the same for NDAA indefinite detention. Or gun grabbing. Or the Patriot Act.
All the big-government fake conservatives are pushing for Romney, even though he’s so similar to Obama, yet fake conservatives call me the idiot. Funny!
Please go back to mom’s basement and watch more “truther” videos and don’t come out till after the grownups have the election.
Trey Gowdy is my rep. He is an absolute GEM of a politician. I would love to see him in a top spot in politics. He’d make a great VP, although he’s only a representative…and he’s new to Washington. He needs more time under his belt, but boy is he a rising star. He has such command of the Constitution, a clear and concise way of explaining his thoughts and he takes no crap. He’s quite intimidating, I’m sure, to the looney left who has no answers for the crap they’re trying to pull.
“But her f’n job is overseeing a major government organization which must have a legal department. You know, lawyers advising the organization on the legality of it’s actions? She didn’t have these folks take a gander at her regulations and provide an opinion?”
You seem to be a little misinformed about the job of her legal department. It’s not to tell her it’s illegal, she already knows that, it’s only to tell her how to get around the law against it.
Bingo!
No, just a marxist in thought! Why is that so hard to believe? Afterall, women and blacks, both “gatherer’s” in their dispostions by both biology and choice make up over 70% of our population. November elections, watch!
Why would anyone be surprised. Even in constitutional law classes, I’ve read that the concentration is on case law, not the actual constitution. Even Justice Guinsberg doesn’t seem to take it seriously, based on recent comments.
The problem is not so much that Sebelius is ignorant of the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution is not taught in school.
To me the problem is that the RINOs don’t constantly explain that the Founders wrote the Constitution to meet an explicitly stated reading comprehension level about equivalent to a current day high school diploma. Aimed at the farmers and shopkeepers of the time, it was crafted for Everyman to be able to quickly read and clearly understand. Brief and clear, as in unequivocal. That’s what it is, like a black rule book stuffed in the hip pocket of an NFL official. What the crowd say doesn’t count, rules are rules, and the rules in the ConSTITUTion are the only ones that matter.
When the Progressives pronounced the Constitution is a “living” document, it was effectively declared dead. Since then it’s been under constant assault by lawyers spouting important sounding bullsheet and news entertainers acting as if Everyman is unqualified to understand the thing, and therefore they have no choice but to go on to and dutifully give “living document” definition, which is of course absolutely false.
So sad. So inexusable. So very damaging.
Let’s paint with a broad brush here. So funding contraception (a common-sense, almost universal part of women’s healthcare) is about RELIGIOUS freedom? That is an odd case that you have made loudly, but it is still odd.
There is such a common-sense aspect to funding contraception that the squawk over religious freedom, especially since most of the people adhering to Catholicism DO take contraceptives, has become more of an abstraction, rather than the passionate anger, righties had hoped for. You don’t exactly have the high ground on that one.
We also have the paradox of the assertion that the Constitution is simple and clear and everyone can understand it vs. the fact that billions of dollars have been spent on lawyers and trials in order to determine just what it means.
Now let’s talk about the limits of the interstate commerce clause. Is it plain and simple what those limits are? And whatever they will be at a given moment, soon to come, it will be determined by a 5-4 vote.
The $ billions spent on lawyers and trials have not been spent trying to ascertain its meaning but rather to defend its meaning against the liberal termites who are constantly trying to change it to fit their political agenda.
Beginning with Alexander Hamilton or Marbury vs. Madison?
Romney Obama the Same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38