The Moribund Constitution and What Comes Next

The progress of the constitutional "death by a thousand cuts" has been irregular over the generations but recently the executioners have become impatient to finish the job.

The list of body parts that have already been sliced off is too long to include here, but I'll mention a few just to give you a sense of how quickly the torture of the document is progressing.

In just the past few years the first amendment was cut off by the "McCain-Feingold" legislation. The fifth amendment (and the property rights described there) was excised by the "Kelo v The City of New London" decision of the Supreme Court. And it's hard to count how many were lopped off by the ill-named "Patriot Act" and the crown jewel of the current king's "accomplishments", "The Affordable Health Care Act."

This article would be too long if it focused on the details of these unconstitutional slices, and I'm afraid it wouldn't matter anyway since no one seems to care even when it's explained to them. You couldn't find a handful of people on the street, (or God forbid on the campus of some institution of so called "higher learning") who have any usable knowledge or even awareness of these events.

If you think that Jay Leno or John Stossel get some blank expressions when they ask people on the street  who the Vice President is, just try asking the same folks what they think about any of the above listed successful constitutional assaults. (They do  know plenty about is who should pay for contraception pills and Rush Limbaugh's name calling of a political activist on that issue though.)

Which brings us to the last two very recent developments in the execution of the constitution:

One of those events was yesterday's news story that the Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, explained (in a speech at Northwestern University) that any US citizen can be assassinated by the execution branch, er..executive branch of the government, without due process, as long as they are out of the country and the President suspects them of being part of a terrorist group. The explanation was new, but not the concept, since the President already had at least one guy "offed" by an unmanned drone. I'm not sure if that makes it different in their minds, but it doesn't in mine.

The other event was today's news story that another one of  "all the President's men", Leon Panetta, Secretary of Offense, er..Defense, testified before congress that he only needed the permission of groups like NATO and the UN to commit an act of war on another country (this time Syria), but not the permission of congress as is expressly called for in the US Constitution.

So what comes next for the almost dead constitution? (and the rest of us by extension)

Well, just ask yourself what the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is talking about nowadays and see if these issues make the list. Last I checked it was who was calling whom names among Newt, Rick and Ron.

In my mind it may be too long to wait for an election in November. These clowns should be impeached today. But they won't be, particularly since it seems I'm the only one calling for it.

It's starting to look like no matter who is elected between Barack and (presumably) Mitt the death sentence will be fully carried out in the next four years.

Breaking News

Since finishing this piece and posting it about an hour ago, this news story showed up on Fox News. It seems the right of free speech in the form of peaceable protest without violating anyone else's rights is now becoming a thing of the past as well. If this story doesn't alarm you, you might be un-alarmable.

Just in Time for "Bill of Rights Day", The Police State Has Arrived In America

Do you think the title to this piece is over the top? I'm sure some of you do. But I can assure you that I'm serious. And as you celebrate Bill of Rights Day today (12-15) you might want to give some thought to the irony of what is going to happen to one of those rights as things unfold on the glorious national holiday that no one has ever heard of.


There are quite a few fundamental rights that we all used to take for granted because we lived in a "free" country. Many of those rights have been watered down so much by various laws that they have effectively been taken away from us. The list is pretty long, but even if there were just one item on it, it would be too long for crazy, inflexible people like me.


The President is about to sign into law a power he has coveted for some time. You can read what others are saying,The Guardian in the UK has an excellent piece.  The vast majority of Americans are clueless about what just happened in congress and even if they did know, I'm not convinced they would care. 


Just as many were not opposed to rampant wiretapping in the past, because "if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear", many will not be alarmed by this new law because, "I'm not a terrorist, so the government won't revoke my right to a fair trial by a jury of my peers."


In case you were distracted by events in the Russian elections recently, I'll tell you what you missed here at home that might remind one of what happens routinely in Russia. The right of Habeas Corpus was just suspended.


As part of the defense authorization bill that funds the US military, the President himself can decide to detain anyone, American citizens included, indefinitely - perhaps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - if he suspects that they are a terrorist.  And he would use the military itself to do so. On suspicion alone, no formal arrest, no rights given, no attorney, no arraignment, no trial, no judge, no jury. 


People as diverse as Senator Rand Paul and Senator Dianne Feinstein opposed this bill, the latter saying; "Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she went on, "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."


But those that prevailed, led by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, argued otherwise. The latter saying; “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”


Even Comedy Central got this one right when they summed it up by saying; "while the Bush administration just assumed that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force empowered them to imprison people without charges, the Obama administration will have these provisions formally codified. Rule of law, baby!"


So, happy Bill of Rights Day. You needn't worry too much right now about whether you personally will be detained indefinately and denied your rights as an American citizen. Most likely, you will not be. What will happen in the future is anyone's guess.
  
But if you are as concerned about this as I am, and if someone asks you what state you live in, just answer, Police. That way you can go "over the top" with me without taking the trouble to explain it all.

Let's All Celebrate Parchment Barrier Day!

You are probably asking, what the heck are you talking about now? I get that a lot when I write these attention getting headlines.

A "Parchment Barrier" was the way the founders of our country described documents such as the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it, the Bill of Rights. (Today they might be referred to as "Paper Tigers" according to Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute.)

The founders knew all along that you can't really enforce these documents if the people who take an oath to defend them decide to ignore them. After all, they have most of the guns and most of the inclination to use them. Having said that, so far in this republic the preferred way of ignoring them has been legal circumvention instead of citizen execution. It's a distinction with a real difference.

The real name of the celebration du jour is Bill of Rights Day. And it's important to remember it on this day so we can try to figure out what went wrong and perhaps how to get back to the original intent of the provisions found in it. I have kicked around the idea of listing the usurpations to our rights for quite a while but, "if you're snoozin' you're losin'" as they say and I slept on it one too many nights because someone beat me to it today.

That person is the above named Tim Lynch and he does it much better than I probably could so I'll just keep my place a block behind the parade and let you read his excellent piece titled simply "Bill of Rights Day" which was published at Cato-at-Liberty this morning.

It is posted below (with the author's permission) in it's entirety for your convenience. Tim provides excellent links in the original article to demonstrate his points.  You may not enjoy having your rights violated but I think you will enjoy the article.
 

Bill of Rights Day

Posted by Tim Lynch

Since today is Bill of Rights Day, it seems like an appropriate time to pause and consider the condition of the safeguards set forth in our fundamental legal charter.

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, insist that they can enact laws concerning television and radio broadcasting, and even pamphlets!

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is doing well–so we can pause briefly here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches and crotch inspections.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for a public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can take away our property and give it to others who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused shall enjoy a speedy trial, a public trial, and an impartial jury trial. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial. That is why 95% of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment says that jury trials are guaranteed even in petty civil cases where the controversy exceeds “twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines against people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that jailing people who try in ingest a life-saving drug is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are to be reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers are reserved to the states, or to the people.

It’s a depressing snapshot, to be sure, but I submit that the Framers of the Constitution would not have been surprised by the relentless attempts by government to expand its sphere of control. The Framers themselves would often refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers” or what we would describe as “paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that putting safeguards down on paper was better than having nothing at all. And lest we forget, that’s what millions of people around the world have — nothing at all.

Another important point to remember is that while we ought to be alarmed by the various ways in which the government is attempting to go under, over, and around our Bill of Rights, the battle will never be “won.” The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. To remind our fellow citizens of their responsibility in that regard, the Cato Institute has distributed more than four million copies of our “Pocket Constitution.” At this time of year, it’ll make a good stocking stuffer.

Finally, to keep perspective, we should also take note of the many positive developments we’ve experienced in America over the years. And for some positive overall trends, go here. Let’s enjoy the holidays but also resolve to be more vigilant about our liberties in 2011.

You Really Must Buy a Chevy Volt

No, this isn't an ad for the new Government Motors car, the Chevy Volt. In fact, the idea that anyone (not intellectually impaired) would actually buy one of these $41,000 turkeys with their own money is preposterous to me. Unless, of course, they MUST  because it became against the law not to buy one.

The whole concept would have been ridiculous to even contemplate until just over a year ago. That is when the same government who took over GM, fired the president of the company, refused to pay off any of the bond holders who lent the company money, gave a huge ownership stake to their union buddies and started making political donations back to themselves decided that you really MUST buy health insurance as part of their takeover of the US healthcare industry.

Those of us who weren't consumed with excitement running up our legs over the recent election of Hopama and Company knew at the time that the whole scheme was unconstitutional (to say nothing of being completely immoral.)  But having seen GW Bush sign a clearly unconstitutional repeal of the first amendment (McCain/Feingold) and the Supreme Court of the US uphold the government taking of one lady's property in order to give it to connected real estate developers (Kelo v. City of New London), we also knew that the mere fact that something is unconstitutional doesn't mean much anymore.

That is, until yesterday when at least one rational federal judge decided that he agreed with us that the provision of the 2700 page Obamacare nightmare which mandated that citizens must buy government designed and approved health insurance was indeed unconstitutional. When Judge Henry E. Hudson made that ruling yesterday in the Commonwealth of Virginia's lawsuit against the federal government, he became the first stumbling block for the law on it's road to the Supreme Court of the US where the legal part of the citizens' resistance to the takeover will be decided.

So it occurred to me that while we wait for this legal drama to play out it might be time to think about what it will mean if the court decides that the government can force you to buy something it feels will be beneficial to others. Why not start with the (coal powered) electric car that Government Motors is pushing with $7,500 of taxpayer money in the form of tax rebates? I mean, even if it didn't help others, lots of people might buy a $41,000 car if they could get their neighbors to pay the first $7,500. But why take the chance that they might not when you can simply pass a law saying they MUST? (As in T. H. White's ant colony, "Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory.")

After that the precedent will be set and the people may be forced to buy orange juice and health club memberships to supplement their health insurance. If so, they can drive to the mandatory health club in their mandatory Chevy Volts and live in mandatory good health until they finally die. Death being the only thing which is truly mandatory in a constitutional United States.

Cruising in perilous seas aboard the USS Healthcare

What should be the debate of our lifetimes has been on the horizon for a long while but has now come to within cannon range of the ship of state.
I say it should be the debate of our lifetimes, but now I’m not so sure it’s going to happen at all, much less be a vigorous exchange of well informed and rational ideas. The result may be a disaster of Titanic proportions.

Before I begin to explain my solution to the problem with healthcare in America, let’s try to identify exactly what the problem is and why it became a problem. Only then can we gain insights into what the system has become and what is being proposed to “fix” the system.

Despite political wailing to the contrary, it’s clear to anyone who does thoughtful analysis of (and comparisons to) healthcare in the rest of the world, that in this country we enjoy a very high level of care, a very high level of access, and a very high level of innovation. Indeed, people flock to these shores to receive the treatments they cannot get in their own countries in time to make a difference. It is especially true of countries who have already begun their own experiments in government provided “care”. Canada’s debacle is evident and would already be over if it’s citizens were forbidden to seek care in this country. We have provided the “steam control” valve for that boiler.

Which leaves the one problem that almost everyone agrees we need to solve. The dilemma is, we desire more care than we wish to pay for ourselves. The cost is “too” high. We would rather spend our money on other things. So this is the one true problem to which we all seek remedy.

The reason the price is high is the same as it is with every other commodity or service that has ever existed. Namely, the demand exceeds the supply at the price we wish to pay. If it sounds like I have chosen to relay something that is so obvious it is almost insulting to anyone reading it, please consider that most of the people who have selected the current crop of “fixers” are deeply in denial about that fundamental truth. They have been told the price is dear because of inefficiencies, greedy providers and the like, and sadly, they choose to believe those things, rather than the simple truth.

The excess demand for health care has been created by government policies. Some old policies, and some not so old. And if you think there is excess demand now, and therefore high prices because of those old and not so old policies, just wait until you get a bead on the new policies being readied for you and the even higher prices that come with them.

When government interfered with healthcare prices by allowing employers to compensate their employees with tax free health insurance, it caused a huge surge in demand for the services. The cost rose in response. That was one of the old policies I referred to.
Then, when government decided to take money from some people and give it to others to whom it did not belong in the form of Medicare and prescription drug benefits, understandably, demand went up some more and the cost rose some more.
When state governments decided that in order to get votes (power) they would vilify insurance companies for not writing policies that included coverage for almost everything that anyone wanted, (and could possibly be related to health in one way or another) demand went up and the cost went up some more.

These states were actually able to get the insurance companies themselves to agree with them in exchange for protection from competition and the huge profits to be made by charging for these spurious add-ons which enjoyed no great demand on their own. In other words, they cut a deal which we weren't in on.
The result of all these policies was the rapid and predictable rise in the cost of health insurance.

So, those are the main reasons for the cost being “too high”. The other factors most often mentioned (by advocates for government provided insurance) are quite small by comparison.
I can assure you that more government interference, which is the cause of the problem, will not be the cure for the problem. That would be the textbook definition of insanity.

As for the USS Healthcare, the course (government insurance) and speed (full steam ahead, just like the TARP bailouts and “stimulus” law) have been set by Captain Obama. But the icebergs are still there and the result will be dead people, just like the Titanic of old.
These dead people won’t be as easy to see as the bodies floating in the Atlantic in April of 1912. These people will be the unseen dead, the multitudes who die because they cannot get the tests or treatments they need, in time, or at all, in many cases. Many more will die from not taking the medications that will never be invented because of government run healthcare. Most people will never make the connection between the flotilla of corpses and the ship of fools.

I propose a different speed and direction for the liner, a carefully plotted course along a well traveled, proven route. The destination is an island, an imaginary Isle of Freedom. A place without busy-body armed thugs forcing people into a system where they have to pay for everything they don’t want, but do not receive the services they desperately need.
It would be a place where two or more private citizens could make arrangements among themselves to insure for the services they want, not those that have been mandated by politicians. America used to be such a Isle.

If a person living there wants to buy a high deductible, major medical policy to cover only “in hospital” care for catastrophic health issues such as accident or disease with no coverage for anything else and a company offers it at a price the person agrees to, he/she could purchase it without interference from government or anyone else. If you didn’t desire coverage for marriage counseling, obesity, insanity, substance abuse, skydiving accidents, maternity benefits, anger management or anything else, you wouldn’t be forced to pay for it.
If you desired coverage for all or any of those things, you would be free to arrange to have it provided at a price acceptable to both parties.

Ship's Captain Obama wants to form a newly created government company to provide “competition” for private companies. It’s nonsense of course. The result will be the end of private insurance. No one can compete with a company that has unlimited funds and no profit motive. And the people who profess to be “pro choice” on some medical questions are decidedly anti-choice when it comes to health insurance.

The cost of this insane legislation is estimated to be one TRILLION over the next decade. Keep in mind, the government has never overestimated the cost of any program it has implemented. A better bet is that it would be double that. We will never know except in retrospect.

Additionally, such a function of the federal government is not found as a listed power in the US Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional. (refer to the tenth amendment) Not that anyone on the healthcare ship gives a hoot about the Constitution. But that's a different topic.

It is not enough to oppose these dangerous and costly programs, one must be willing to propose alternate solutions, so now I’ll propose some things that the federal government can do about this “crisis”, something that is constitutional, and which I believe will immediately make things better. Things which, unlike vast new government programs and mandatory bureaucratic rules, can easily be undone if they prove ineffective. Things which expand choice and freedom and require no force to be used in their implementation. In other words, the American way as we have always understood it until recent times.

One of the few enumerated powers of the federal government is to regulate commerce between the states to be sure that goods and services flow freely. I believe that the congress should pass a law to override the anti-freedom laws of many states concerning health insurance. Those which mandate certain coverage and forbid competition by out of state companies. This is certainly an inter-state commerce question as envisioned by the founders.

I also believe that the tax policy of allowing deductions for providing health insurance to employees should be extended to the people themselves. Anyone who provides health insurance to anyone, including themselves, should be allowed to deduct that cost from their taxes. Further, all health expenditures should be deductible to whomever provides them. And lastly, any healthcare benefits received by anyone should be tax free to the recipient. The cost of this “government program” to this country? Zero.

And no, less tax revenue to the federal government is not a cost, despite what is taught at some goofy left wing schools.

These are the freedom/free-market solutions to our high costs. And they will work wonders if ever given a chance. More people with the health insurance they truly want, at a price set by the market, not some group of elitist health Czars. More people insured at lower prices. That is the goal, right?
And better treatments and medications being developed using the money that is saved by not being diverted to the “cause of the day” coverage.

However, I am not the Captain or even a crew member, so my suggestions will never be addressed on the bridge of this ship. As a passenger, I will probably go down with the ship though, with the Captain and crew floating away in the lifeboats afforded to the elite rulers in congress and the White House. They always make provisions to exempt themselves from the “cures” they impose on the rest of us. They have their own health plans and retirement plans quite apart from social security and other boondoggles.
Meanwhile, my children and grandchildren will be adrift along with yours.

Unfortunately, the supporters of this course will not drown at a different rate than those of us who spotted the icebergs. In death we all will finally be equal, because the destination this crew has set sail for, is the Isle of Equal Misery.

Peekaboo Justice

Blind Faith or Blind Citizens?

Almost every President gets the chance to select at least one Supreme Court Justice. And much can be learned about their philosophy of governance by who they pick, so all things considered it’s a good thing on balance. The current President has purposefully chosen his words about what he values in regards to the manner of changing the Constitution to reflect his vision for America in the 21st century. If you missed his buzz-word “empathy” or somehow misconstrued what he meant by it, you might need to reconsider the De-Caf choice.

No matter how the issues get clouded or the personalities get scrutinized there is only one fundamental question that is of any real lasting importance. How that question is answered reveals one of the most fundamental differences between left and right, Republican and Democrat. (or others of us who disagree with both on one issue or the other)

The question is,
Does the Constitution of the US exist as a hard and fast set of rules designed to restrain the baser instincts of the governors and the governed by delegating power and responsibilities among them or is it merely an ever-evolving set of guidelines that can be changed on a whim without regard to the democratic process?

Almost everyone pretends to embrace that process until they cannot get something they desire using it. And even the politicians who agreed to limit themselves at the outset began to look for “work-arounds” almost immediately.

It’s tempting to refer back to the document itself to ascertain whether or not it was meant to be strictly adhered to, but that is like proving the authenticity of the Bible by quoting scripture. That temptation should be avoided so focus can instead be on the intention of those who proposed and adopted it.

Even the people who detest the concept of one set of rules for everyone have never attempted in any meaningful way to declare that the whole thing was just an exercise in philosophy and never meant to be actual law.

I have always found the argument that the Constitution is a “living” document to be amusing because of the perverse way it has been presented. As if the carefully worded, precise method laid out within the constitution for amending itself was meant as alternate means of changing it in the odd event that the justices themselves didn’t rearrange it according to their personal preferences.

So while the questions about new proposed appointees to the court are politically entertaining in some ways, they are usually irrelevant to the fundamental issue. Whether or not the next justice is a racist, a socialist, is clever or dimwitted, has proper judicial temperament, is black, white, male, female, of a certain ethnic group or has a compelling personal story is totally irrelevant to any thoughtful US citizen. The only thing that matters to those citizens is whether or nor the person chosen will enforce the laws as written or make them up as they go along according to circumstance or preference.

I’m not suggesting that a person who disdains the constitution as it exists or the process by which it can be amended is not a thoughtful citizen, only that they prove their thoughtful credentials, even if only to themselves, by showing their support for the appointee who reflects their view of the fundamental point without pretending it is because of the side issues mentioned above. As in the past, people who have sought to defend the Constitution or undermine it have proved to be thoughtful indeed. It is honesty and clarity of purpose I value on this fundamental issue.

It is my belief that justice should be blind, but the people ought not be.