The United States Constitution was written with the intention of limiting the powers of the federal government. As a positive document, the Constitution lists only what the federal government can do. Article I, Section 8 contains eighteen clauses that enumerate the powers of the federal government's legislative branch. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments indicate that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated within the text of the Constitution, or Amendments passed, and if an issue does not fall within the purview of the authorities granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, the issue belongs to each of the individual states, respectively.
Congress, in an attempt to justify the federal government's unconstitutional proposals, regularly grants themselves the power to tax and spend, and essentially do as they please, with expanded versions of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause (established, they believe, by Supreme Court decisions of the past).
The Supreme Court, when it comes to the law, is not another writer of the U.S. Constitution. Their decisions do not amend the Constitution, nor create law. The United States Supreme Court is not granted the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution, either. Their function is to "apply" the Constitution to the cases they rule on, and provide "opinion" regarding the constitutionality of a law. If a law is seen as unconstitutional, it is up to the legislature to change it. Only the Legislative Branch of government can "make" law, or repeal law.
The federal government may only exercise the powers granted to it, or denied to the states, as granted by the Constitution, or any Amendments. The states have control over everything else. Therefore, the Supreme Court is not suppose to rule over cases that are strictly state issues, nor can the Supreme Court make rulings that "dictate" to the states how to establish their own laws, if the issue does not fall under the authority of the federal government as granted by the U.S. Constitution.
The Legislative Branch, with proposals like Health Care, is attempting to take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory, regardless of Constitutional authority, and regardless of the opinion of the American People.
The Constitutional problems with Health Care legislation, and the federal attempt to take control of the American health care system, are many. The proposal of allowing the federal government any intrusion into the private issue of health care, or health insurance, is unconstitutional to its very core. The General Welfare Clause was not intended to give the Congress a free-floating power to do anything it can no more than the Commerce Clause was designed to allow the federal government to restrict interstate commerce at will.
In Federalist #41, James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution), wrote that ". . . persons alleging that the General Welfare Clause permitted unlimited exertion of power were grasping at straws in their attempt to prevent the ratification of the Constitution. . ." And he wrote, in regards to people who believe the General Welfare Clause allows government to do more than provided by Article I, Section 8, that the ". . .specification of the objects by the general terms immediately follow and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon."
The General Welfare Clause states that the United States is to "promote the general Welfare." Notice the word "promote," rather than "provide," first of all. Also, note the word "general" rather than "individual," meaning that the General Welfare Clause was designed to promote the general welfare of the republic, not to each individual in the form of an entitlement.
One of the provisions of the Senate Health Care Bill gave Congress the power to require Americans to purchase health care. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of the individual insurance mandate, and none of those authorities listed justifies such a mandate. One must consider the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, and recognize its "limiting principles." Considering that the text of the Constitution is specifically designed to limit the authorities of the federal government, and that nowhere in the text is there an authorization for the Congress to mandate that anybody buys anything, how constitutional would you imagine a provision to be that mandates citizens to buy health insurance under the threat of fines or prison? In other words, can the federal government force a person to enter into a contract?
Under closer scrutiny, it becomes not only glaringly apparent that mandating every American to buy health insurance is not provided as a federal authority by the U.S. Constitution, but that the provision violates the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment. In other words, the federal government cannot "seize" your opportunity to private health insurance for the greater public use while taxing (or fining) you without due process. In the health care legislation there is nothing that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, which deprives citizens of property without "due process of law."
Contrary to the arguments presented by the supporters of federal health care legislation, government involvement in health care, as witnessed in examples of government intrusion into health care around the world, will lead to the rationing of health care (particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved), provide free health care for illegal immigrants paid for by your tax dollars, offer free abortion services paid for by the tax dollars of everyone (including those with a moral abhorrence to abortion), and probably forced participation in those abortions by medical professionals that have moral and/or religious objections to the procedure.
Ultimately, rather than providing competition as is claimed (participants like the federal government that set the rules of the health care industry as they desire to do, and the fact that the government does not rely on profit to remain in business, is not viable competition), the government involvement in health care will eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a "single-payer" government run system. Once that takes place, all decisions about personal health care will be made by federal bureaucrats whose primary goal is not your health, but determining the best way for the federal government to spend less on hospital admissions and payments to physicians, while placing strict controls over the allocation of necessary medical devices.
With the incentive of profit removed, the quality of care will lessen, and the greater minds that would normally enter the medical industry, as lured by profit incentive, will opt for other opportunities, leaving the industry with less qualified personnel for an ever increasing demand created by the offer of "free" health care by the government.
In the process the government will also be given free rein over your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. Anytime the government would wish, they could search through your records, and violate your right to "secure. . . papers and effects" without a warrant, or probable cause. This is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
Article VI of the Constitution requires the members of Congress to be "bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. The proposal of an unconstitutional bill filled with unconstitutional provisions is a violation of that sacred oath or affirmation. No wonder the forces behind the Senate Health Care Bill felt like they had to pay off Senators to get their votes, as was the case with Senator Landrieu (Louisiana Purchase offer by Harry Reid of $300 million), or with Senator Nelson (Cornhusker Kickback that allowed Nebraska to be exempt from paying into certain provisions, which led to the expectation of the other 49 states to pick up Nebraska's portion of the monies).
This is not to say that a public option is completely unconstitutional. If a state, without federal involvement, desires to have health care programs that do not violate their own state constitution, and the program is paid completely with state funding, then a public option in that manner is completely constitutional.
One must also consider that liberty, or freedom, is a manifestation of "choice" available to individual citizens. If the government involvement in health care will eventually eliminate the private industry, that would leave Americans with no other choice than government health care. Such a limit of choice is a limit on liberty. And when considering such a limit on choice, one must ask themselves, what happens if the government does a poor job of running health care as many Americans expect? In that case, we will be stuck with what we have, because the choice to not use the government system, or to not pay into it anymore, will have been removed.
One more thought on the government intrusion into the health care industry, and this one is offered to those that support the current health care legislation proposals. What happens if future administrations do not see the health care legislation in the same way you believe the current administration does? In other words, do you really wish to grant this kind of power over your health to a future administration that turns out to be tyrannical?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment