Ben Carson Isn’t Exactly a Con Law Genius

Ben Carson is running for president and decided to demonstrate for one and all that he has absolutely no clue what the Constitution says or means. Please witness one of the dumbest arguments you will ever encounter for why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

The likely GOP presidential candidate explained that the law helps some people while hurting others, so is therefore unconstitutional: “Your solution should be something that represents all the people. The Constitution says one of the purposes, in the preamble, it says is for the ‘promote the general welfare.’ What that means is that we do things that help everybody, we don’t pick this group and say, ‘We’re going to help you at the expense of this group over here.’ That’s not promoting the general welfare so we’re actually violating the Constitution in that sense.”

In that case, a whole host of laws could be considered unconstitutional since nearly everyone can point to a law that they think affects them negatively while helping others. “It wasn’t really about health care, it’s about control,” Carson said of the health care law.

*headpalmfacedesk* Seriously, saying something that fucking stupid should cause physical pain. By that standard every law is unconstitutional. There is not a single law that could possibly be passed that would benefit everyone. Public policy always involves tradeoffs. This guy wants to be president, for crying out loud.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/182302048″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • petemoulton

    Yes, but he’s a RWNJ. He doesn’t understand trade-offs because they’d be compromises, and RWNJ don’t compromise. Ever.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    pete is right. Only RINOs compromise!

  • John Pieret

    Oh, goodie! We have to get rid of capital gains taxes, then, because they favor people who own capital versus those who don’t. All income from what ever source gets taxed equally!

  • Alverant

    Of course the laws he wants on the books are perfectly fine even if people know it will affect them negatively.

  • raven

    The likely GOP presidential candidate explained that the law helps some people while hurting others, so is therefore unconstitutional:

    These days, a lot of laws are written by the 1% economic elites to benefit…the 1% economic elites.

    This guy Carson hasn’t actually thought anything through very well or more likely, just doesn’t care.

  • illdoittomorrow

    ‘The Constitution says one of the purposes, in the preamble, it says is for the ‘promote the general welfare.’

    Well see general welfare means welfare state and that can’t be because AMERICA and awesome and Reagan so neener neenerz!!11!!

    Ed, the first sentence of your post could have stopped after “clue” and it would be more accurate.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Carson’s stupidity doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the fact that there are so many people who listen to him and don’t see the stupidity. And even more people I suspect that maybe see him as a little out there but he’s on their side and thus OK. He gives cover to the real problem of the power brokers who fly below the radar and do the real damage. He’s a shiny distraction.

  • brucegee1962

    Media, please run the headline: “Ben Carson opposes farm subsidies” in Iowa. Pretty please?

  • Moon Jaguar

    Doc Carson was a featured panelist on “This Week” about a month ago and he was waaay out of his depth. The sooner his fellow right wing presidential wanna-be’s tear him to shreds on a debate stage, the better.

  • karmacat

    I think he is also forgetting that the abolishment of slavery hurt people (actually just a few).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=523300770 stuartsmith

    I’m glad to hear this. As a murderer, I’ve long felt that laws against murder fail to benefit me as they do my potential victims, and I’m very glad to hear that they are unconstitutional as a result of that.

  • Sastra
  • Michael Heath

    Ben Carson’s stupidity extends well beyond his ignorance regarding the U.S. Constitution. Here we see a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of “promote the general welfare” in any context.

  • caseloweraz

    OT: I’m starting to see hints that Carly Fiorina is thinking about running for president in 2016.

    A Carly Fiorina campaign?

    “That’s so yesterday.”

  • busterggi

    “Your solution should be something that represents all the people. The Constitution says one of the purposes, in the preamble, it says is for the ‘promote the general welfare.’ What that means is that we do things that help everybody, we don’t pick this group and say, ‘We’re going to help you at the expense of this group over here.’ That’s not promoting the general welfare so we’re actually violating the Constitution in that sense.”

    So the 2nd Amendment is unConstitutional because gun violence victims are being harmed by gun owners? Glad to see someone in the GOP who isn’t in the pocket of the NRA>

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    @ Moon Jaguar,

    That shouldn’t be too hard. I and the editorial page editor at the newspaper where I was working when he ran in the primary race for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination had an hour and a half with him.

    His thing at the time was a flat income tax, so this was the pre-9-9-9 days. I wasn’t trying to ask “gochya” questions, just asking specific questions about how it would work. Like, if the IRS is abolished as was part of the plan, who keeps retailers honest. A couple of weeks before that I had bought several gallons of paint at a mom ‘n pop store, and when I pulled out my card the guy told me that if I paid cash they wouldn’t worry about those pesky sales taxes — only 7 percent here. So just think how much more incentive there is to cheat when the sales tax is $25 cents or whatever it would have to be to replace the federal income-tax revenue.

    He also could not give an answer for the question of what amount federal sales taxes would be in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the income tax. Wouldn’t even “ballpark” it. He either didn’t know or knew if he told the truth people would be, like, “fuck that.”

    Mind you, this was the centerpiece of his campaign and he couldn’t answer the most basic — and obvious — questions about it.

  • naturalcynic

    Uh, fifthdentist: was that Herman Cain?

  • colnago80

    Re caseloweraz @ #14

    Considering the great job she did as the CEO of HP (not), she seems well qualified (not).

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Normally, when it comes to declaring things they don’t like unconstitutional, wingnuts dismiss the General Welfare clause as meaningless because otherwise it would give Congress broad authority to, like, govern the country. It’s good to see their new goal-oriented constitutional scholarship in which the General Welfare clause prohibits Congress from doing all the things they don’t like. Hopefully we can put the two together and get them to cancel out, perhaps resulting in a large explosion.

  • https://www.facebook.com/joseph.sexton.7 Joseph Sexton

    Off topic, but speaking of people who are not constitutional law geniuses, Larry Klayman has struck again. He has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Joe Arpaio seeking an injunction against the Executive Action on immigration. The Complaint is on the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association website, unfortunately, behind the member’s only wall on the site.

    There’s nothing to suggest how the high sheriff has standing to be the plaintiff, so it is likely to be short lived, but the entertainment possibilities seem endless.

  • John Casey

    Short lived indeed: the filing has been dismissed already, for lack of a particularized injury, and for seeking a judicial answer to a political question.

    Larry and Joe have already announced an intention to appeal to the DC Circuit. Good luck with that.