Barney Frank: “It’s not my job to know what I’m doing” or something

Unbelievable.

Congressman Bawney Fwank (D-MA) says it’s not his job to know whether a law he votes on is constitutional or not — that’s the Supreme Court’s job, silly!

In the next Congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.

The rule is a mostly symbolic overture to the Tea Party, for which an animating cause was that much of the congressional agenda over the last two years, including the president’s health care law and the bailouts for Wall Street, has been unconstitutional.

But some House Democrats are steamed at the charge their agenda has gone beyond Congress’s constitutional authorities.

“It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party,” said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank about the rule. “Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court. Some of them interpret the constitution very differently, but no, that will not be a problem.”

In other words, “anything I’m do is going to be checked by those guys, so why should I bother to understand the driver’s manual?  Just because I have the keys? Oh, please.”

Bawney, there’s a big difference between accepting judicial review and just throwing up your hands and saying it’s not your danged problem. In fact, it is your danged problem, like it or not. Allow me to remind you of your oath of office — you know, that thing you recited between accepting fat envelopes from lobbyists:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Those highlighted parts are there for your benefit, Bawney. It’s a fair bet that carrying out your oath means understanding the document you swear to protect and defend. You might try it sometime, and try less of the arrogant jackass routine.

Be sure to read the whole article, folks. It’s just chock-full of charming quotes like that from “Representative” Fwank’s fellow oligarchs Democratic colleagues.

BY THE WAY: I have a question for the voters of the 4th congressional district of Massachusetts. What were you thinking? How in God’s name could you people ever choose that spiteful, arrogant, contemptible toad over Sean Bielat last month? Enlighten me, please; I’m really at a loss here.

h/t Jennifer Rubin via Gay Patriot

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

5 Responses to Barney Frank: “It’s not my job to know what I’m doing” or something

  1. Craig Horning says:

    But… but… don’t you realize that this would require members of congress not only to know the Constitution, but to read and understand a bill before voting on it? Are you mad?

  2. Jim says:

    This would also require the members of Congress to only read and a bill before voting on it, but it would require them to read and understand the Constitution. It would also require them to believe and respect what it says and it’s authority. From what we have seen coming out of the crapital in recent years, that may be too much to ask.

  3. NSagan says:

    Reading the Constitution is only part of it. Then they have to read over 250 years of decisional law that comprises stare decisis. It’s hard not to take this a political gambit put on for the voters but not much substantively.

    • Phineas Fahrquar says:

      Hi NSagan,

      Agreed that they have to consider the constitutional theory as it’s developed over 200+ years, but I don’t think that’s all that hard to do for people who are paid to write our laws. My main objection, which perhaps I didn’t make clearly enough, was to Frank’s abnegation of any responsibility toward determining whether a law he supports is constitutional. While the courts may weigh in, it’s still a congressman’s job, too. As for reading the constitution, even a symbolic act can have meaning. In this case, I and others believe it will serve as a salutary reminder to our elected representatives of core principles, kind of like going back to basics. In fact, I wish they’d open each session of Congress with a joint session at which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are read — a healthy bit of ceremony to focus our “leaders.”

      Thanks for leaving a comment!

%d bloggers like this: