Rand Paul is an Idiot

Libertarian boy wonder Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s response to today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means. For all intents and purposes, when the Supreme Court declares something constitutional, it will remain as such until the Supreme Court declares otherwise or the constitution is amended.

I seem to recall learning that during social studies class sometime between 4th and 5th grade. And I’m from Kentucky.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Epic Fail and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/scifritz scifritz

    But that is the Libertarian way…You don’t need to live by society rules, you are free to make your own rules…and create your own medical board to board certify yourself…

  • GeneralLerong

    “You’re not the boss of me,” huh?

  • http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/ Southern Beale

    Hey Rand Paul wanna explain how a law that simply regulates the private, for-profit health insurance industry is a “government takeover of healthcare”?

    Dumbass.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000098740588 Jeremy Grunloh

    Just because some senator declares something to be ‘unconstitutional’ does not make it so.

  • http://www.copywritingdean.com/ Stephen Dean

    Ya, your 4th grade teacher might have taught you that. But you won’t find in the constitution that the supreme court has the last word on things.

    Members of congress have every right to make votes based on what they think is constitutional or unconstitutional – regardless of what the Supreme court says.

    The President has the right to sign or veto a bill based on what they think is constitutional or unconstitutional – regardless.

    And it might just be that Rand Paul doesn’t agree with the Marshall Court’s activist installation of judicial review.

    You might think his analysis of Marbury vs Madison is wrong, and call him an idiot I suppose. But I think it’s more likely you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • i_a_c

      Wait a minute. Rand Paul both disagrees with Marbury v. Madison and the Supreme Court’s decision? Impressive cognitive dissonance, as Rand Paul wouldn’t be able to get his way without Marbury v. Madison.

      Sounds like yet another case of “I hate judicial activism (whatever that is) until I agree with it.”

    • BuffaloBuckeye

      Actually, it’s more likely that no one really carers what your view of Ashby’s article is.

    • JMAshby

      The right to vote based on personal belief is not in dispute. Rand Paul is free to say whatever he wants and vote however he wants, and I’m free to say he’s an idiot. I’m also free to point out that what he said is nonsensical.

      You know, because liberty.

      • mrbrink

        Liberty and home school!

    • Lazarus Durden

      Umm no one is saying Sen. Paul can’t vote whatever way he wants. But ACA is pretty much the law of the land until Congress overturns it with another law, or the Constitution is amended.

    • bphoon

      US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

  • http://cousinavi.wordpress.com cousinavi

    From Kentucky? Well, Bob’s your uncle.

  • Lazarus Durden

    Sen. Paul Dr. Cosby would like to comment on your assessment of today’s SCOTUS ruling:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA

  • muselet

    Far be it from me to speculate on whether Ron’s little boy was dropped repeatedly on his head when he was a child, but he does seem a mite … slow, doesn’t he?

    Kind of makes me nostalgic for the good old days when Jim Bunning was a Senator from Kentucky. At least he never even pretended to understand what was going on around him.

    –alopecia

  • D_C_Wilson

    Faux libertarians fetishize the Constitution in much the same religious fundamentalists do the Bible: They say it’s sacred and infallible, but most of them have never actually read it and wouldn’t understand it if they did.