Topic: Health Care
I Love Our Government; I Detest Politics. They aren't the sameby John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Government is simple. Politics is complicated. Both are by design.
The powers of our federal government, the government I love, the government which was created to ensure the blessings of liberty to all future generations, that government's powers are in a nifty little list found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
To process required to express consent to new governmental powers which address "major issues facing America" like the "healthcare crisis" or "mortgage crisis" or "banking crisis" or "terrorism" or "the crisis formerly known as global warming (now called climate change since the globe stopped warming)" or whatever the problem du jour happens to be is actually quite simple. It's outlined in Article V of the same Contract.
All it takes is 2/3 of the House of Representatives to propose an amendment (change) to the Constitution and 75% of the states to ratify it. It's actually been done before-27 times actually, it's just been a while. When the Constitution was written, the people writing it knew they couldn't forsee the changes that would happen. But they did know what an unrestrained government to do, so they left it up to the people to give more power to the government via this process (I feel certain that an Amendment to build the interstates would have passed, and one to keep the interstates in good shape would pass today). Here's a good example of how it's supposed to work. Very simple:
On December 18, 1917, the House passed, with a 2/3 majority, the 18th Amendment because alcohol consumption was seen as a "major issue" by the people the House members Represented.
On January 16, 1919, 36 states (75%+ at the time) ratified the Amendment. One year later on January 17, 1920 the amendment went into effect.
What happens when an Amendment is passed? The last line in good ole Article 1 Section 8, where you can find the aforementioned 'nifty list' of things the governmental actually has the power to do, kicks in and then Congress has the power:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution [as expressed via an amendment] in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So in 1920 laws started being passed to give the people what they asked for: the Prohibition of alcohol. Then what happened?
After a decade, we the people realized the laws prohibiting alcohol were creating more problems; i.e., gangs, mobsters, violence in the streets and toward police officers, illegal manufacturers and distributors getting rich (like the Kennedy Family), and many decades later-NASCAR) than the problems alcohol had caused when it was legal; i.e. hangovers, falling off horses, domestic violence (not that this wasn't a serious problem, it just wasn't 'caused' by alcohol consumption since it continued during Prohibition).
After realizing this we the people told our Representatives, "Hey, we want the Federal Government out of the 'making laws to address this issue' business in regards to alcohol.
So on February 20th, 1933 2/3 of the House proposed the 21st Amendment and on December 5th of that same year 75% of the states ratified the Amendment, thus rescinding the "consent of the governed" and setting off massive drunken parties and 12 step programs everywhere.
This is the last significant Amendment in American history because in 1936, the Supreme Court decided in the Butler Case that the Government could spend at will without the consent of the American People if it was for "the General Welfare." Keep in mind that the people never amended the constitution to allow the Supreme Court to amend it for them, so the fact that the government has justified their ability to create laws and spend to enforce them based on this power "granted" to them by the Court in cases like Butler, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, and South Dakota v. Dole, doesn't make it "Constitutional." It just makes it "allowed via interpretation."
What does this have to do with today? Who gives a damn how much the Healthcare bill costs? If the people want it, spend 100 trillion dollars on the thing. "Spending Responsibly" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution although you'd think it was all over the thing since you hear the phrase used by "conservative" politicians so often. If the people request it, give it to them. If they don't--don't spend a dime on it. That's how you "Spend Responsibly."
But this request is not issued by a simple majority election of a President and majority in Congress. It's issued via a Constitutional amendment.
And guess what? There's no way in hell an Amendment on this healthcare deal would pass today. Maybe it would in a few years after the advocates of state regulated/sponsored/provided healthcare convinced their fellow citizens of its merits. But since America "needs this reform", something as stupid as the Constitution that every single one of the politicians swore to "preserve, protect, and defend " when taking office won't stand in the way of "progress." That's why "progressives" are for this legislation, and it's also why some people who take that Contract seriously use a term for 'progressives' that is usually reserved for a WWII era political movement that didn't let restricted governmental power stand in the way of what it saw as "progress" while implementing its "final solution."
Instead of actually getting the consent of the people which would actually unite the country, we have a country divided along party lines. We have a plan that is too watered down to do much (what the proponents would call) "good." We will have decades of politicians campaigning based on their plan for what they feel should be done to "fix" healthcare while playing on the fears of public the same way politicians do now with Social Security.
And most importantly, we have no way to just rip the power away if things go horribly awry like they did with Prohibition. Yet, politicians will certainly campaign on 'reigning in the waste of the healthcare', or 'making sure the person who wants to reign in the waste doesn't destroy healthcare for the elderly and the children' (ever notice how it's always about the elderly or children?) And we'll be stuck with it.
Why not do it the right way? Why not get the true consent of the governed? Why not pass an Amendment so that nobody could ever cut funds to this program or any other the Congress felt was needed to ensure affordable healthcare to American citizens (at least until a time the citizens took that power away)?
Because bills like this, allegedly, help the majority and only negatively impact, allegedly (silent inflation through printing money and how it destroys the middle class is a whole different topic for another time), the "wealthy" minority. The Republic was created to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority' that is democracy. The word "democracy" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution (the Contract 'We the People' have with our government)--and it's not exclude because the people who wrote it weren't familiar with that form of government. It's excluded because of the divisive nature and destruction majority rule causes.
Why will nobody stand up for the wealthy (wealthy being a word defined by the people in power at the time)? Do they have less of a right to what they earn than any other individual does? Does someone's need for the "wealthy" person's earnings trump the right of the "wealthy" individual to keep what she has earned? Wealthy people are individuals with inalienable rights as well. And a republican form of government ensures that those rights will be protected.
This bill and all others are created with one true purpose: To Divide us a country into teams of "left" and "right" where we can be easily herded and controlled and used as pawns to support whatever our team wants to do when it is their turn to be in power again.
Government is simple: if the people want something, all it takes is 2/3 of the House and 75% of the states to ask for it and give the government the power to create the laws to make it happen. Then it can never be politicized again.
Politics is complicated. It divides people. It says, "Trust us, we know what's best."
Nobody would argue that affordable healthcare is a good thing. Many would disagree that a governmental solution is the solution. But in time, with education--not with a bill that was written in months and will be in place forever after--we may decide that a governmental solution is the solution. And by 'we', I mean 2/3 of our elected House members and the majority in 75% of the states. Or we may just have to find another solution, or realize that this really isn't a "crisis" after all.
Until the time when we can restore a government of the people, by the people, for the people; a government deriving its just power from the consent of the governed; we will continue to be divided and force fed ridiculous political nonsense like this 'news' from today:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of a sweeping U.S. Senate healthcare overhaul at $849 billion over 10 years, a senior Senate aide said on Wednesday.
The CBO said the Senate plan, to be unveiled later in the day by Democratic leader Harry Reid, would reduce the deficit by $127 billion in the same period and extend coverage to 31 million uninsured people, the aide said.
It costs $849 billion, but reduces the deficit by $127 billion.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
Comment, it's fun
As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
For reference. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. The texts can be read at www.foavc.org. Obviously the states want the people to have more power or they would not have submitted the amendment proposals they have.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
