hcr – Zombies Uncensored

Good Job ‘Supporting’ the Constitution Hare

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

Congressman John Boccieri of Ohio being questioned about the health care law.

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution…

Rep. Hare: I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.

Off-camera: [Laughter.] Jackpot, brother.

Rep. Hare: What I care more about — I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.

Off-camera: You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold!

Rep. Hare: I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now you tell me…

Off-camera: That’s the Declaration of Independence.

Rep. Hare: It doesn’t matter to me. Either one…

[Lots of childish sniping.]

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to…

Rep. Hare: I don’t know. I don’t know.

Off-camera: That’s what I thought.

Later on Phil Hare responded to the video.

”I support the constitution, I served in the military for six years. I don’t need anybody including Mr. Schilling and his political crew telling me I don’t believe in the Constitution. I’m proud of my vote I cast. Millions of people now will have healthcare that never would have had it before and if they want to play ‘gotcha stuff” on whether I support the Constitution, that’s shameful, because I do”

The congressman is basically trying to make the argument that the morality of saving lives trumps all other concerns. In short, morality trumps legality. He supports the Constitution–as long as it is in keeping with his own moral views. Like so many other politicians, Hare fails to see the danger in this line of reasoning.

The problem with Phil Hare’s statements is not the constitutionality or morality of health care; it’s the assertion that question of constitutionality is irrelevant and meaningless. The rule congressman Hare follows here is that his own moral compass supersedes the Constitution. He fails to see the contradiction in cases where his morality may conflict with the document that gives his authority legitimacy.

The Constitution is legal basis for congress, the federal government and the health care law itself. If the legal authority of the Constitution is irrelevant, that in turn makes the authority of congress and any laws passed by congress irrelevant.

Update: Hey, you’re totally misreading what I said about the Constitution

Mandatory Purchases: New Lane on the Superhighway to Serfdom

Not enough fear mongering has been done about the mandatory purchase of health insurance. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, saying having mandatory health insurance will lead to government specifying mandatory purchases on everything. The slippery slope helped make mandatory health insurance purchase requirements possible, by virtue of mandatory auto insurance.

It’s not a stretch to assume at some point, something else will be added to the list of mandatory purchases. Health and auto insurance will be used as the justification for further governmental control of personal income. I can’t predict what the next mandatory purchase will be, or how many there will be. Once the government has been granted a new power, it inevitably discovers additional “need” for exercise of the new-found power.

To avoid abuses of such authority, the next logical step would seem to be to set limits on how far government can go in requiring mandatory purchases. This obviously won’t work, because the federal government has repeatedly shown itself to ignore limits. Case in point, the federal debt limit: each time the debt limit is reached, congress simply votes to raise the debt limit. Once a limit has been placed on power, they simply vote to extend the limits of the power.

There is the belief that as long as you have freedom of speech and religion, you still live in a free country, or that if you loose some of the ability to decide what to do with your own money but still have these basic rights, you are still free. The fallacy of this belief becomes clear as the percent of control the government has over income becomes closer to 100 percent than to zero percent.

Once the amount of taxes crosses fifty percent of income, people take notice and start to complain. They quickly come to realize the closer you get to being taxed at 100 percent, the closer you are to having zero freedom. If 100 percent of what you make is taken by government, then basically government owns you and the fruits of your labor. So government has to be careful not to go too far past the halfway point to enslavement.

The TEA Party protests indicate to me the government has pushed the boundary of taxation about as far as it safely can. While I’m sure there is still some room in there to squeeze in minor taxes, there is no room for large-scale tax increases–the type needed to fully fund health care coverage for all Americans. That’s why a new form of governmental control over income was needed. Enter mandatory purchases.

Allowing the federal government the ability to mandate purchases has opened up this new lane in The Superhighway to Serfdom. You’ll still have somewhere around half of your income in your hands, but the amount of your income you’ll have control over will gradually decrease through mandatory purchases.

Government needs to be careful not to load up this new lane of serfdom to quickly. Once people are heavily taxed and burdened with mandatory purchases, seeing they have little control over their lives, it sometimes produces consequences like the French Revolution. I hope a movement will form to undo this new dangerous power, and I hope it will be called the BABE Party, Bitten At Both Ends.

Social Security: Wildly Popular and a Godsend?

This Week / Governors on Health Care

Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.

It reminded me how often opposing views towards the changes in America’s health care system were dismissed, by pointing out that Social Security was at first met with similar opposition and is now “wildly popular” or a godsend.

It’s true: when the government returns your money, it is wildly popular! Income tax return checks are wildly popular, too. Unemployment checks are extremely popular as well. I guess it is important to point out times when government is magnanimous enough to give you your own money back!

In any other part of society, when someone gives you your own money back it’s not considered a godsend–it’s considered theft or fraud when you don’t get your money back. It’s only a godsend to get money back from an entity who has the power to take away money at will, under no obligation to give it back. As in a bully that takes a kids lunch money and “generously” gives some of it back later on.

Rendell does have it correct in describing Social Security as a godsend, because the definition of godsend is “something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.” Any time the bully that is our federal government gives money back to the people they took it from, that is is a godsend.

Government has Munchausen syndrome when it comes to Social Security; the government takes your money away, making it harder to save for retirement, then pats itself on the back for saving you. They can’t be content with helping only those in need, and instead make everyone ill and dependent on government for the cure.

Social Security: Wildly Popular and a Godsend?

This Week / Governors on Health Care

Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.

38 States Challenge Healthcare; Enough to Amend the Constitution

38 States Looking To Challenge Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNPCDsqJXFs&feature=player_embedded

38 States? That is enough to change things! That is just enough states needed to amend the Constitution.

Article Five of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I hope the states plan on not only resisting health care reform, but taking away some of the Federal government’s power while they are at it. The health care debate might end up doing some good if it rallies the states together enough to remove some Federal power.

38ers anyone?

Bart Stupak Cave-In on Health Care

Bart Stupak Cave-In on Health Care

Sums up the news of the day.

Senator Sanders: Single-Payer Could Start in 2017

Senator Bernie Sanders Seeking Public Option Vote “in the Next Few Months”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWJAeXk6Gw

Bernie Sanders: What we have right now in the bill is language, unfortunately it doesn’t kick until 2017, that would give states a great deal of flexibility to go forward in variety of ways. Including my preferred method, would be a Medicare for all single payer way…

I hope very much that we will give states more flexibility, so that they can go forward for a Medicare for all single-payer bill.

Nope…no hidden agenda in the health care bill. Nothing that would lead to a government takeover of healthcare. The goal isn’t a single-payer system where the government takes the place of private insurance companies. That’s just crazy talk.

HealthCare Debate has Just Begun

After viewing these videos, I see no end in sight on health care quarrels. I’m starting to believe if the health care bill passes, it will become as contentious as abortion with decades of court cases to follow.

The first video has Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell arguing the health care bill is unconstitutional, because it violates article one section seven. McConnell said it violates the rule that before the President can sign the bill, it has to have been voted on separately by the House of Representatives and the Senate. McConnell also points to article one section five, that the votes have to be recorded in a journal if one fifth of the members present request a vote.

Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v6YUrP77gE

But then you have Andrew Napolitano arguing the Supreme Court would not rule deeming the health care bill as ‘passed’ unconstitutional, because the Constitution states the houses write their own rules for how bills are passed. The Constitution states a bill that has ‘passed’ the House of Representatives and the Senate can go to the President, the key word is ‘passed.’ The house can define how it chooses to pass a bill.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQ_fMmfD8s

Someone probably will contest to the Supreme Court asking them to define what ‘passed’ means. If the votes were there, they would just vote on it and be done with it and not have to declare it as passed. If the houses can define what ‘passed’ means through rule changes to mean hypothetically voting on a bill, it should be taken to the Supreme Court.

Throw in states challenging the health care bill by means of the 10th amendment along with how the bill passed the house, and there will be no end in sight to Supreme Court challenges over this issue.

I was foolishly starting to believe that someday the health care debate would be over, but it looks like it’s really just begun.

10th Amendment: Might Does Not Make Right

Virginia And 34 Other States To Block HealthCare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYY4RB3YA4

The three cases mentioned in the video from Wikipedia: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.
In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

What I’ve gathered from this is:

When the federal government passes a law, they can’t force states to enforce their laws.
The federal government can punish states that refuse to enforce federal laws by withholding federal funds.
The federal government can act directly and enforce the law themselves if the state refuses, as in Gonzales v. Raich.

Gonzales v. Raich(2005). In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn’t grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

In my public education, I was never taught about the tenth Amendment. The education I received left me with the impression that Federal law always supersedes state law. I guess they didn’t see the need to teach about something that has, for the most part, been ignored.

I do remember something about the Civil War starting out over some similar issues. The Civil War settled the issues of slavery and which was the most powerful–federal or state government. It left me with the false impression that because the federal government always wins, they must always be right.

In the video, Robert Marshall said “this is a forced contract.” In any other aspect of your life, were someone to force you to sign a contract or go to jail, it would be easy to distinguish that might does not make it right. The forced aspect of the healthcare bill has made it clear to me the federal government is not always in the right, and that’s why there is a tenth amendment.

10th Amendment: Might Does Not Make Right

Virginia And 34 Other States To Block HealthCare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYY4RB3YA4

The three cases mentioned in the video from Wikipedia: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.
In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

What I’ve gathered from this is:

When the federal government passes a law, they can’t force states to enforce their laws.
The federal government can punish states that refuse to enforce federal laws by withholding federal funds.
The federal government can act directly and enforce the law themselves if the state refuses, as in Gonzales v. Raich.

Gonzales v. Raich(2005). In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn’t grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.