Sorry I haven't posted lately- NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) '09 started, and I've been busy boosting my word count. ;)
I thought I'd just post and say- or type- a few words about some of the current events, as well as...well, a few rants I've been forced to hold in over the past few weeks.
Fort Hood Shooting
It's been all over the news. Such a crisis warrants all of us pulling together. But there's one thing that bothers me: the huge controversy over why the guy did it.
Hassan is, obviously, a Muslim. So what? Is that reason, like I heard some say, to completely ban Muslims from being in the armed forces. Uh...no. That's completely unconstitutional. Neither is this proof that his actions were jihadist.
From what I understand, Hassan was upset because he did not want to be deployed. He disagreed with the wars. So he was upset. He was angry. People have done much stupider things because they were angry. I do not think, with the current information I have, that Hassan's actions were motivated by religion. They were motivated by his own feelings of frustration and anger.
Healthcare
The 'healthcare' bill passed the House. They snuck it through at midnight. (Shows what cowards they are, if you ask me.)
Anyway- I have stated before that this bill is not about healthcare. It is about insurance, and giving a boost to them. The insurance companies will receive a boost because of this. That is why they are the No. 1 promoters of these bills.
Probably the one single reason I do not agree with this bill is because it will not fix a thing. It will only apply another temporary fix to the problem. Anything we do, at this point, would only add a temporary fix. We need to completely rethink our system- release ourselves from the narrow constraints of the insurance system, coupled with the medicare system, and fend for ourselves. Stop relying on third parties to do our work for us.
It will never cease to amaze how conservatives gripe about how the government is going to 'dictate care'- but they fail to realize that the insurance companies do just that. Insurance providers tie doctors and patients' hands, and keep them, in some cases, from getting care they should get.
And yet that is a better system? Give me a break!
The Constitutionalist in me does not want a universal system. But we need a fix, not a bandaid. I do not know if a universal system would fix things or not. But hey, it might be worth a try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
"The Constitutionalist in me does not want a universal system. But we need a fix, not a bandaid. I do not know if a universal system would fix things or not. But hey, it might be worth a try."
The Constitution isn't a political party or viewpoint, it is the supreme law of the land; government-mandated insurance is demonstrably against the Constitution, and is therefore illegal.
Being a lawmaker does not automatically bestow the ability to legislate unlawfully, and the healthcare bill is therefore null and void. (See Article 6, Sec. 2, U.S. Constitution.)
Article 1, Sec. 8 would have to be amended to allow Congress to provide insurance.
Besides all that, I don't want yet another X-percent being taken out of my paycheck and given to a rogue government to further destroy my country, nor do I want to have thousands of dollars in fines or five years in jail for non-compliance.
Son, I totally agree. But my point was that we must have a solution. That is my main beef with this bill; it is not even near a solution. We need fixes, not half-truths and semi-solutions.
And that fix must come legally, an issue to be settled between the people and the free market, not the federal government.
I don't see any part of the constitution that talks about health care, but okay. The main point is that although this solution isn't prefect, government never is, and this is as close as we're going to get. The bill says you need health care. You can take the public option, which is not paid for by you, unless you have the public option. Yes, the bill is expensive. But the current system is even more expensive. Sometimes you have to give in order to get.
If the government provides health care for all paid for with taxes, then it is the same as police protection or fire department services. Completely Constitutional. The Constitution allow Congress to levy taxes to promote the General Welfare.
And then it defines "general welfare".
Read it for yourself.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
~James Madison, Father of the Constitution
BTW, how can you say it isn't paid for by me, when it is going to be taken out of my paycheck like Social Security?
Son3,
Thanks for your response. While James Madison may be called the Father of the Constitution, he is not the only contributor. And while his words carry weight, they are not the same as the actual content of the Constitution itself. I do not see where James Madison made it clear that a program such as universal health care would go against the Constitution. Please show me where in the Constitution it discriminates between taxing us for health care or taxing us for other purposes.
The thing is that healthcare is not 'general' welfare. The general welfare are things that will help everyone, not individuals. An example would be national defense or emergency services- not healthcare.
Healthcare is an individual benefit, determined by ones ability to take care of oneself. I am not responsible for my neighbor's healthcare, I am responsible for mine and my family's. No one elses.
And I agree with Son. How can you say I'm not paying for it when the government HAS no money without me and other taxpayers? I don't believe for a moment that they will separate out my taxmoney from the tax money of every other American. They can't. It would be impossible.
And for purposes of clarification, I'm pretty sure it does't give the power to tax indiscriminately. They are allowed to tax for certain things. Like paying the debt. Which, by the way, should be paid off BEFORE we get into more debt working out this healthcare problem with a bill which won't do anything in any case.
Choco38, it is an almost overstated fact in the Constitution that the Constitution all-inclusively enumerates the powers of the federal government, and specifically states all powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the state governments or to the people.
In Article 1, Section 8, the General Welfare Clause specifically enumerates what constitutes "general welfare".
(Postal service, court trials, commerce, immigration, etc.)
This is not my opinion, but the fact of the matter.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." ~Thomas Jefferson
You know, this is pretty basic stuff, and I can't imagine how anyone who has participated in an American civics class cannot understand these simple concepts and principles of the U.S. Constitution.
The mere fact that neither medicine nor insurance are listed in Article 1 excludes them from federal governmental interference.
States can do whatever they want concerning these sorts of things (10th Amendment), but the federal government would have to amend the Constitution to legislate healthcare.
No need to be condescending. I am familiar with Article 8. It does list certain specific powers but does not enumerate all powers. Article 9 lists specific limits on powers. I'm no Constitutional scholar but it seems that Congress can levy taxes for purposes of the common defense and general welfare as long as it does not go against the limitations of Section 9. You know we have a Supreme Court, as well as numerous lower courts. Are you suggesting that there is a consensus among judges that Universal Health Care is unconstitutional? Personally I don't like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, but we are currently forced to buy car insurance at the state level which makes a certain amount of good sense. Would you be satisfied with universal coverage at the state level?
I wouldn't be satisfied with state-mandated coverage, but the state would at least be doing it Constitutionally.
(So long as it didn't violate the state constitution.)
Section 8 does enumerate all powers to be considered "common defense and general welfare".
I know of judges, Andrew Napolitano, for one, who say the current plan is unconstitutional.
Something that may be helpful to remember is that the only purpose of the Constitution is as a "chain" to "bind" government.
I understand your point, but I think you favor a minority position on the interpretation of these provisions.
There is no 'interpretation'. Section 8 implicitly details all powers of the government. The Constitution was intended to bind the government; if general welfare meant anything and everything, then there would be no point in a Constitution, now would there?
I will quit arguing as I seem to be outnumbered, but I still say that your position is not generally accepted by judges or constitutional scholars. Its highly unlikely that Congress would spend this much time on a bill that won't survive a constitutional challenge. Perhaps they are using a broad interpretation of the Commerce clause. But I don't want you to think that my argument on this point means that I necessarily like the system that is being proposed.
That is probably because the 'constitutional scholars' we have running around are like Obama and don't even believ the constitution is a good document. Someone who doesn't think the Constitution is applicable today, or is irrelevant is not someone I want deciding if something is 'constitutional'.
Joyful Momma,
I was hoping not to get dragged into any more discussion of things "Constitutional", but I really have to take issue with your comment. Barack Obama is not only well educated on the subject, he was a Constitutional Law Professor and has a lot of respect for the Constitution. I get the feeling you are getting some false information from Fox News or some talk radio show [Brian and the Judge?]. There's a lot of that going around. If you want his actual statements on the Constitution in context, please listen to this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI where you will find that the "flaw" that he refers to is slavery. It also did not give women, black people or the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote. The Constitutionality of a Federally administered health plan is another story. That's why we have a Supreme Court to rule on such matters if necessary.
Choco, I believe what my mother is talking about is his comments in his book.
http://teenpolitics-liberty.blogspot.com/2009/05/audacity-of-hope.html
He talks about how the Constitution, and basically says he agrees that it is a living document.
And BTW- we hate Faux News just as much as the liberals do. ;)
Liberty,
You make some good points, although I tend to lean more toward the "living document" myself, so I doubt if we will come to any agreement. You are welcome to your opinion of Obama, but it seems unusually harsh. As a liberal I can tell you that we do not find Obama to be radical in any sense. Most people I know consider him much too moderate and certainly nothing remotely like a Communist. But I suspect there isn't much room for argument on these points. Why don't you like Fox News? You seem to be in agreement on many points.
Post a Comment