By Katie Pease
While campaigning in Quincy, Congressman Phil Hare was cornered by a group of his constituents who engaged him in a debate about health care. When asked where in the Constitution it gives congress the authority to pass this bill, he responds, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.” See the whole exchange for yourself:
After having ample time to scramble around and figure out what other meaning might possibly be attributed to his statement, Hare posted his own calculated response, which accuses his constituents of taking his words out of context (see below). Hare’s spokesman, Tim Schlittner, also released a statement that makes the same argument: “His full statement said ‘I’m not worried about the Constitution on this.’ ‘On this’ meant that he is not worried about this health care law being ruled unconstitutional.” That’s quite a stretch. See for yourself.
Now, I’m no lawyer or fancy talkin’ type, but I reckon this here conversation didn’t have anything do with the health care bill going to the courts (considering the fact that that topic did not enter into the debate at any point in this exchange). In fact, Hare’s sad tale about how this bill would save the family of a child going to the emergency room from being stuck with a $10,000 bill was just wrapping up when the “C” -bomb was dropped. But I’m not here to tell you what to think. Was this a heated argument where his words were taken completely out of context, or was it a Freudian slip that reveals where this congressman stands on the Constitution? Here’s a better question: are his constituents willing to risk that the latter is true when they cast their votes in the next election?