Tea Party vs. The Constitution: ObamaCare Edition

This is classic. At last month’s tea party protests during the Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act, tea partiers were asked what specific constitutional provisions were being violated.

Despite having their pocket constitutions firmly at hand, they couldn’t seem to articulate their constitutional objections to the Affordable Care Act at all. Among the responses were some truly ignorant ones, like “the commerce clause was added to the Constitution” (it wasn’t), or that the Constitution didn’t specifically mention health care. Hey, it doesn’t specifically mention nuclear weapons either, but I don’t see them out there protesting against those.

The response that chuffed me the most was the lady who, when confronted with the facts about the commerce clause, said “Well, we probably shouldn’t argue about that anyway, since neither of us really knows.” Hey, lady! Yes, one of us knows, and anyone who cares to know can easily find the answer by going to look at the images of the original constitution and looking carefully for traces of 18th century correction fluid. Hint: there isn’t any.

What this video proves is what we’ve been saying all along. There is no “Tea Party,” per se. There are just lots of Republicans who respond to fearmongering and manufactured nonsense in order to fight anything, even if they don’t know what they’re fighting. I’m sure they’re trying to be good citizens and participate in their democracy, but really, it does help to do that armed with something besides the feeling that it’s a bad thing because a Democrat did it.

Can we stop referring to this group as something legitimate and simply acknowledge they represent the easily-led group of card-carrying Republicans?

More from

Corporate Accountability

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze