What did she just say?

  • Follow Editorials

CNN host Erin Burnett’s answer to a recent interview question ought to be shared with every schoolchild in America.

As an example of how not to think about America.

In a recent “Answer This” puff interview with website Politico.com, Burnett was asked what she would do if she were president just long enough to issue one executive order.

“Mandate one year of service for young people — whether domestically or overseas,” she said. “It could be military or other service. Travel and exposure to people who speak other languages, have different values or live in different socioeconomic situations is important to raising open-minded, tolerant citizens.”

Sounds innocuous enough – and we would wholeheartedly agree with her that foreign travel and service to others are both huge character-builders.

It does sound as if she thinks Americans aren’t “open-minded” and “tolerant,” but that’s not our beef with her statement.

Rather, it’s that she would, even if in a fanciful way, suggest that the president of the United States either could or should dictate to Americans how to spend a year of their lives.

The statement betrays an odd and frightening, though strangely fashionable, expansive view
of the powers of the U.S. government. An
executive order mandating a year of servitude? Really? Even if for humanitarian reasons,
isn’t that just a bit beyond the constitutional
purview of a U.S. president? Or the Congress, for that matter?

This may have been a throwaway line of little importance, but the way of thinking behind it is no small matter – and this is a woman who speaks to hundreds of thousands each day. It reveals a gaping hole in her understanding of our form of government, of liberty, of self-determination. As a free person, you have the right to dedicate a year or even a lifetime to serving others. We recommend it highly! But you also have a right not to have it forced upon you.

This thinking, that because something is good for you or good for the body politic, that the government can therefore require it of you, is a dangerous notion that threatens our liberties because it covers them over with a cushy layer of what passes for compassion these days.

In truth, true compassion is freedom.

Comments (50) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/05/11 - 11:06 pm
0
0
So the AC doesn't think

So the AC doesn't think military service or other service to the country for ALL is a good thing? It's a good thing y'all weren't influential during WWII. You guys puzzle me at times.

It's best to find one philosophy and stick with it in all matters instead of playing to the rim shot, chopped liver crowd who only come to the Catskills during the week.

Landriau
0
Points
Landriau 11/06/11 - 01:52 am
0
0
Conscription was authorized

Conscription was authorized by COTUS in 1940 for WWII and again in 1950 for the Korean War and subsequently for the War in Vietnam. It was both necessary and valuable for preserving the freedom you enjoy today. I fully support Erin Burnett's suggestion that not only would it benefit our young people, it would also protect and preserve the freedom you think you need not pay for.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 11/06/11 - 04:43 am
0
0
Partial credit. The point

Partial credit. The point raised about the limits of executive authourity is valid, but basing it off this CNN host's comment made me laugh. ACE couldn't find a better example of abuse of executive power?

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 09:33 am
0
0
Naturally, the President

Naturally, the President doesn’t have this power but the Supreme Court has ruled conscription legislation constitutional.

Here’s a brain teaser: What’s the difference, from a constitutional point of view, between mandating federal military service and a federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance?

Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/06/11 - 06:56 am
0
0
War?

War?

carcraft
26005
Points
carcraft 11/06/11 - 07:11 am
0
0
BJ-physics- That is my point-

BJ-physics- That is my point- defending America is a constitutional obligation. Laws legally passed by congress and signed by the president to draft to man the military fullfills that constitutional duty. Issuing an executive order to ship folks over seas, not really constitutionally allowed. Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power to raise and army and maintain a navy, not so sure about an air force, LOL! Your question is easy, military service to defend America is a specific power in the constitution. Forced purchase of insurance is a distortion of the commerce clause and a misreading of the General welfare passage in my view!

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 07:12 am
0
0
Carcraft: “…military service

Carcraft: “…military service to defend America is a specific power in the constitution.”

Where is forced conscription in the Constitution?

Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/06/11 - 07:16 am
0
0
BJPhys, so you equate war to

BJPhys, so you equate war to mandatory health care?

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 07:28 am
0
0
1) The Constitution applies

1) The Constitution applies before war, during war, and after war.
2) We had a peacetime draft for years.

Truman tried to use his power as Commander and Chief to shut down a steelworkers strike during the undeclared Korean War; the Supreme Court ruled he did not have the authority, that he was Commander and Chief of the armed forces not the nation.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/06/11 - 07:29 am
0
0
Yeah, but the peacetime draft

Yeah, but the peacetime draft was during the cold war when we were militarily threatened.

carcraft
26005
Points
carcraft 11/06/11 - 07:32 am
0
0
BJphysics-Where does the

BJphysics-Where does the constitution allow forced purhase of insurance? We no longer have a draft...

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 07:41 am
0
0
Carcraft: “Where does the

Carcraft: “Where does the constitution allow forced purchase of insurance?”

They think they’re going to find it in an interpretation of the Commerce Clause just like finding justification for conscription (even though the word or equivalent words are not there) in these lines:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/06/11 - 07:43 am
0
0
Here's the thing, actually

Here's the thing, actually there is little in the Constitution to allow it to be held in abeyance during time of war, but it has been done throughout our history with Lincoln being the best example. It is well recognized that the Constitution is reduced to a very tiny font during time of war. Lincoln ordered a suspension of habeas corpus and that is allowed under the Constitution, sort of.

The most obvious source of an example to support suspending law is the Lincoln presidency. Indeed, one of Lincoln's first acts was to order suspension of habeas corpus which is allowed in a clause that establishes the power to put on hold laws in wartime. But the clause only gives power to Congress, not the President. Heh, little dilemma there.

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 11/06/11 - 07:43 am
0
0
Maybe its my own service
Unpublished

Maybe its my own service history, but I think requiring everyone to serve in the military for two years isn't too much to ask. If you're going to live in the USA and enjoy the benefits of freedom, you should be willing to put your own service into it. Freedom isn't free. Maybe if these people whining about the USA were to actually serve it for a period, they'd appreciate this country more. I disagree with Erin Burnett's reason however. I think most Americans are pretty open minded, tolerant people. Immigrants wouldn't be flocking here otherwise.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 10:41 am
0
0
The question of the health

The question of the health insurance mandate is going to come down to the question of whether the federal government can require the purchase of a product, from a third party, if the government can show a compelling interest under the Commerce Clause.

Can the government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?

RunningMan
346
Points
RunningMan 11/06/11 - 07:56 am
0
0
Forget about this talk of

Forget about this talk of what is constitutional. We are talking about all "AMERICANS" that are physically and mentally able wanting to serve their country. For that we should not need an executive order from the President. Of course this kind of thinking does not sit well with the elite of society because they refuse to give up their plush life style even for a year. Its one thing to talk about being a red blooded american, but its another thing to lose one drop of blood in its defense. Its one thing to talk a your God given rights and freedom, but its another thing to fight for them if asked to do so. This is so typical of a society that expect so much as long as someone else is doing the dirty work. I for one would love to see this become law. I can see lots of benefits, particular for so many lost teenagers. One year of serving their country should be just enough to get them on the right path to a successful life.

Riverman1
84254
Points
Riverman1 11/06/11 - 08:41 am
0
0
"Can the government require

"Can the government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?"

Not if we get rid of all the government workers and funding. They won't have anyone to enforce their edicts. We can defund Obamacare, too.

copperhead
1035
Points
copperhead 11/06/11 - 10:16 am
0
0
EVERYBODY should be required

EVERYBODY should be required to work for the fed government for 10 yearsl why stop with just 1? Maybe even extend it to life! Once it starts,it won't stop.

Landriau
0
Points
Landriau 11/06/11 - 10:24 am
0
0
Don't mix up the questions of

Don't mix up the questions of mandatory healtrh insurance, conscription, war, and the constitution with the question at hand. Erin Burnett said that she thought a one-year term of service to the country is a good idea. I agree with that idea.

harley_52
23468
Points
harley_52 11/06/11 - 10:35 am
0
0
desertcat6 said "Partial

desertcat6 said "Partial credit. The point raised about the limits of executive authourity is valid, but basing it off this CNN host's comment made me laugh. ACE couldn't find a better example of abuse of executive power?"

desertcat6 Nailed it.

I'm a huge fan of the draft, but we have a President.....not a king.

Using this particular issue to use as an example was laughable because of the audience and the hypothetical "just for fun" nature of the question.

Ms. Burnett should be applauded for her recognition of the value of public service and her understanding of how perspectives are broadened by getting the kids out of the house and into the real world.

Frankly, I consider it progress that a CNN reporter didn't answer "outlaw guns," or "criminalize Catholicism."

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 11/06/11 - 10:37 am
0
0
The hippies, pimpies,
Unpublished

The hippies, pimpies, dippies, and cowards of the 60's and 70's are the national "leaders" now. What would you expect from them? Look at hairy reid, juicy jackson, gal sharpton, fancy pelosi, heady kennedy, chuckles schumer, barnburner frank, howie dean, babs streisand and boxer, henry the taxman waxman, chris the bliss dodd, tom don't hassle me daschle, barak the zombie from Kenya obama, dick the turbin durbin, bernie from Sesame Street sanders, susan snoozin collins, olympia the pacifier snowe, lindsey the wimp graham, and the laughs go all the way to entitlement czars cabinet. eric the supreme racist holder, billary clinton, joe the brain dead biden, national association against caucasian people, aclu ( no acronym is sufficiently useful to describe these slime balls) trial hucksters I mean lowyers, and the laughable keep coming at you. America has been stolen and is non-retrievable. Have a wonderful day!

harley_52
23468
Points
harley_52 11/06/11 - 10:44 am
0
0
bjphysics said "The question

bjphysics said "The question of the health insurance mandate is going to come down to the question of whether the federal government can require the purchase of a product, from a third party, if the government can show a compelling interest under the Commerce Clause.

Can the government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?"

I think that's one of the questions to be answered by the Supremes, but not the only one and, depending how it's answered, not the last one.

If the answer to that question is "yes," which I don't think it will be, then the follow on question might be "who gets to decide how much the third party charges for their product and what the product looks like?"

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 10:51 am
0
0
Agreed, it is up to the

Agreed, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the health insurance mandate Obama borrowed from the Heritage Foundation is constitutional.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 10:53 am
0
0
Can the government require

Can the government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?

RunningMan
346
Points
RunningMan 11/06/11 - 10:56 am
0
0
Please stop the nonsense of

Please stop the nonsense of saying that severing in the military is the same as working in the Federal Government in other jobs. Not even in the same ball park. Doing my entire 25 years of service, I never considered myself a bureaucrat. Again, there are those who are always preaching how they are such great americans, so this should not even be debated. This is not a debate about healthcare are anything like that, it is simply about serving and fighting for your country. Are you really prepared to do that, are just providing lip service.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 11:11 am
0
0
Labor has value, money has

Labor has value, money has value; conscription of value either for national service or product purchase is economically equivalent.

Vito45
-2
Points
Vito45 11/06/11 - 11:15 am
0
0
bjphysics, I'm just curious

bjphysics, I'm just curious about something. What should we do about those people who don't qualify for Medicaid/Medicare, but refuse to buy coverage from a third party? SCOTUS has already determined they can't be turned away and Healthcare providers write off billions of their bad debt every year. Maybe there is some merit in saying that "if you don't have private coverage, we will provide you public coverage and make a deduction from your paycheck". Maybe means test it to deduct less from the lower pay scale and more from the higher. Dunno, but what we are doing ain't werkin'.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 11:14 am
0
0
Nobody seems to want to

Nobody seems to want to answer a clear and direct question:

Can the federal government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?

Vito45
-2
Points
Vito45 11/06/11 - 11:20 am
0
0
I say no. But they can deduct

I say no. But they can deduct money from your income to pay entitlements.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 11/06/11 - 11:22 am
0
0
Vito45, I’m not advocating

Vito45, I’m not advocating any position, I’m asking the constitutional question:

Can the federal government require citizens to purchase a product from a third party?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs