When Conservatives pointed at the elephant in the room, and proclaimed that one of the most necessary components of resolving the "health care crisis" is Tort Reform, the progressives in the Republican Party ran right past the elephant and slammed face first into the wall on the left side of the room.
Every president, since and including, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been a raging progressive, except maybe Ronald Reagan. Democrats tend to be more progressive than the GOP, but nonetheless, progressivism reigns supreme in both parties. To be a progressive, one of the criteria is to believe the federal government is the solution to virtually all problems. Therefore, when Tort Reform was mentioned, the progressives in the Republican Party began to try to figure out a way to get controls on frivolous malpractice lawsuits into the federal health care bill.
The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the size, and powers, of the federal government. The authority of the federal government is detailed in plain English in Article I, Section 8 of the Law of the Land. Nowhere in that part of the Constitution, or anywhere else, is the federal government authorized to create a public option, dictate to health providers what they can and can't do, or create a government insurance program to compete with private insurance as Obama is claiming he is doing. Unless an amendment is proposed, and ratified by three-quarters of the states, allowing the federal government to stick their hands into that cookie jar, it is not a federal issue, and it is unconstitutional for Obama and friends to chart a course into those waters.
On the same token, Tort Reform on the federal level is also unconstitutional. Not a single word in the U.S. Constitution allows for the federal government to do anything about these legal nightmares. The states, however, can institute tort reform, as well as have a public option in health care, of which most states already do.
In addition to tort reform, the unconstitutional federal disallowance of insurance companies from selling across state lines must also be eliminated.
"But Doug," they say, "what about the Commerce Clause?"
The Commerce Clause, using the word "regulate" in the manner it was used in the days of the Founding Fathers, means "to make regular." In other words, regulating commerce means to allow interstate commerce to flow freely, and the federal government is only to serve as a moderator, should there be conflicts and bickering among the states in regards to interstate commerce. In other words, by putting restrictions on interstate commerce, the federal government is literally doing the opposite of what the Commerce Clause intended. Rather than make regular interstate commerce, the federal government restricts such commerce with its unconstitutional regulatory laws.
The progressives of both parties don't understand this. They think the federal government is supposed to regulate and restrict and control everything. The whole point of America, and state sovereignty, however, was for the federal government to not regulate and restrict and control everything. That is why states have their own constitutions.
Unless provided as a power to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to act on state issues, overturn state laws, and meddle in state business - Period!
Stopping the Obama proposals, and the socialist dreams of the Democrats, is more than a political disagreement, folks. What we have here is a Constitutional Crisis. The founding fathers understood the dangers of a strong, centralized federal government, and that is why the U.S. Constitution was written in such a way to limit the powers of the federal government.
As Ronald Reagan so wisely stated: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment