Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Constitution is Not Antiquated

The left is all up in arms as is the President and his fellow liberty stealing Democrats over the prospects of the Obamacare law. By no means is the fate of this monstrosity of a law yet sealed. In oral arugments last week, the questions by the Supreme Court Justices seemed to indicate that there were serious problems with the individual mandate. The left at first attempted to claim that if the law was struck down then that would bolster the President's re-election prospects. That meme lasted about a day before everyone on the left realized that a massive over reach by the Democrats would not be taken so kindly. Sure the left may be energized but the independents would feel justified in their opposition to the law and know they were right that this law was a massive intrusion on individual lives by the government. So what did the left turn to? Well Obama attempted to intimidate the justices by claiming if this obomination of a law was overturned that it would be unprecedented. Obama's remarks stirred such a controversy that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals requested an explanation from the Justice Department on whether or not this administration believes the Courts have the right to strike down laws. Now we get Ronald Dworkin from the New York Review of books, calling the constitution antiquated and using strawmen to bolster his claims on why the law should be upheld. Dworkin falls right in line with the left and even goes so far as to call the conservatives on the bench Ultra conservatives while the liberal justices are not Ultra liberals they are simply liberals. At any rate let's take apart Dworkin's arguments.

First of all the language of the consitution is not antiquated. The COnstitution has not been changed in decades because of it's sheer eloquent prose and matter of thought that was placed into the document. The document has only been amended 27 times and the first ten amendments were added immediately to assure passage through the original States. The document is powerful, and just because the ever changing liberal utopia is not in line with the freedoms the document provides does not make the language antiquated. We all know that the constitution is a living document that protects its citizens from an overbearing government. The freedoms we all enjoy are at risk of being lost if this law is upheld. For if there is no limit to what the federal government can do and force it's citizens to do in the name of commerce, then there is no limit to government whatsoever and the constitution will become nothing more than history and will in fact become antiquated.

See we have to limit government. The 10th Amendment itself provides that any power not expressly providd the federal government belongs to the States. The 10th Amendment is the States rights amendment. So even the so called antiquated document assures us that the Federal government only has a certain amount of responsibility the rest belong on the States and from there to the local government. In our constitution all governmental power is derived by the people, not the liberal elite, no tthe political elitists, and not the media. There has to be limits on government or our democracy is sunk and there will be no such thing as freedom.

Dworkin goes on to state "many legal scholars predicted a 7-2 decision". Which scholars? Was it a cross section of legal scholars? Or was it just the scholars that believe government knows best? This is a strawman argument. No faces, no names, and no qoutes. Just numbers that are favorable to Dworkin's argument. How abouth these numbers: 65 percent of American's believe the law to be unconstitutional? How about the majorities (52% according to Rasmussen) that were against passage in the first place and still are opposed tot he law? What about the "many scholars" who predicted the law would be struck down? What about the majority of States that have sued the Federal Government in order to have this law heard by the Supreme Court in the first place?

I know, these 26 states are run by Repulican Governors right? That's Dworkin's argument, like just because one is a Republican the thoughts on the matter don't count. All that matters is liberals think this is a good idea, not what the citizens believe. This is an elitist argument. An argument that says government knows what is in the best interest of the American people. Take away individual freedoms and the government will tell the sheep what rights they do have.

Dworkin goes on to say there is only on provision under serious constitutional challenge. Dworkin calls the only item the "so called mandate" However, just because he calls it "so called" doesn't change the fact that it is a mandate. Either purchase health insurance or be punished. That is a mandate. But his argument is not entirely true. The medicare protion of the law is also under constitutional scrutiny. Both of these provision imposerestrictions on States and the people. The medicare provision is really coercion. The Federal threatens to withhold a States own money if they don't comply with the federal mandate. The individual mandate penalizes people for not having health insurance, which by the way is a commercial product and not necessary to obtain or pay for medical care. That's right, what the left never addresses is that currently the young are able to skip insurance and pay out of pocket for expenses incurred. No where does it say the only way to pay for medical services is through insurance. Both of these provisions steal freedom away from either the States or the people.


Dworkin's next argument has the consitution backwards. He states "The Constitution’s architects were guided by a principle that makes the distinction irrelevant: that Congress should be assigned only those powers that could not effectively be reserved to the states." That is not the case. The Federal government is limited by the constitution. Any power not expressly provided to the Federal government is a States right. States do not gain rights because the federal government chooses to provide them rights. States have rights becasue the Federal government does not have all the power.

Dworkin believes the Solicitor General did a tremendous job defending the law. Dworkin State's that Verrilli offered several ways to distinguish health care from electric cars and broccoli. Verrilli stated that people didn't have to purchase cars and broccoli. That is true but people should have to purchase insurance than either. The premise of Verrilli's argument is that everyone will partake in health services someday so they should be forced to purchase insurance to pay for the health services. Can't the same said to be true of cars? Everyone will take part in transportation throughout their entire life. Shouldn't the government then feel compelled to order everyone to purchase a car? Health care is an industry same as transportation. Insurance is a vehicle to obtain health care the same as a care is a vehicle to provide transportation. See direct comparisons must be made. We need apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Almost everyone will live in a dwelling should the government be able to force people to start paying at birth to purchase a house?

People like Dworkin and others on the left make a big deal out of humanity in cases like this. They say things like common decency, the human element, and emotional well being. I would argue that most laws are based on the human part of things. If humanity were not part of the equation then there would be no manmade laws, there would only be natural law.

Another argument made by Dworkin is thatthis was the only way to bring down health care costs. That is not correct. This law represents the ultra liberal viewpoint of things. There were other alternatives, they were just not appealing to the liberal eltiists. Why did the Congress look at opening borders to commerce? This would have afforded individuals to shop around for insurance across state lines. This would be part of the commerce clause. Instead of forcing individuals to purchase a private product, this would have created more competition and lowered insurance rates as now individuals would have been enabled to search around the country for an insurance plan that would best cover their needs. Why didn't Congress go into tort reform? Many of the excess costs in health insurance are due to outrageous torts that increase costs on Doctor's to practice medicine which of course get passed along to the consumer. The reason the liberals didn't go after tort reform is because the trial lawyers opposed tort reform and trial lawyers are a special interest group to the liberals in government.

Finally, here is what Dworkin claims as rhetorical force.

The rhetorical force of their examples, about making people buy electric cars or broccoli, depends on a very popular but confused assumption: that it would be tyrannical for any government to force its citizens to buy what they do not want. In fact both national and state governments steadily coerce people to do just that through taxation: they make them buy police and fire protection and to pay for foreign wars whether they want these or not. There is no reason in political principle why government should not make people pay directly for these services through insurance rather than indirectly through the mechanics of taxation: direct payment would be no greater compromise of freedom. In fact Massachusetts does make people buy health insurance: that mandate is at the core of that state’s health care program, on which the national Act was partly based. Almost no one—apart from Michele Bachmann—has argued that the Massachusetts mandate is unconstitutional.



Massachusetts is different. Massachusetts is a State and States have rights. The Federal government is expressly told what they are empowered to do and everything else is retained by the States. Maybe Mr. Dworkin needs to go back to school. It is not the opponents that are confused. It is people like him that use emotion to confuse the issue.

Let me ask Mr. Dworkin on question as he uses Social Security as an example of Social products forcing everyone to participate to provide for others?

DO you understadn why there is a so Called "lockbox" filled with Treasury notes and not cash? It is because it is unconstitutional for the Government to retain cash from one year to the next. It is because taxation is supposed to pay only for one year's expenses not not be retained for rainy days. So Mr. Dworkin, it is your social programs that are bankrupting this country and people like you want to continue burdening our young so you can feel good about yourself.



The bottom line is: if this law and individual mandate is upheld, there is no limit to what the federal government is able to do. Yes, if this law is upheld, there will be a loss of freedom guaranteed in our constitution. The government would than be enabled to force us to purchase anything they deemed important to the ountry. Everyone must purchase electric cars becasue of global warming, every must purchase broccolli for their health, everyone must purchase a cell phone so they can call emergency services. This bill has to be overturned in its entirety. The Congress removed the severability clause because they knew without forcing people to purchase a commercial product there would be no way to pay for this feel good about yourself program. There were and are other ways to reduce health care costs and the cost of insurance. There are ways to entice people to purchase insurance without coercion and threat of punishment. The problem is that to liberals and people like Dworkin, there is no other way than Governmental elitist rule. This law was rammed down our throats against the will of the poeple. It was not passed by large majorities as the President has claimed it passed by a slim 219-212 margin by a single party. In fact the only bi-partisanship in this matter was opposition. The left was made aware that the people believed the law unconstitutional repeated before it passed. These arguments were laughed off by the left. That the left in America, Dworkin, and his ilk, are desparate to fulfill some self actualization inner need does not make the Constitution antiquated, it makes these people selfish and irrespponsible.

No comments: