I was astonished by something I heard Judge Andrew Napalitano say today on Neil Cavuto’s show. I should preface this with a thought I had about the bill Senator Max Baucus is introducing. Senator Baucus plans to require every American to have health insurance. Now pragmatically if you are a young self employed person who doesn’t see a need to spend $4,000 a year for decades before you have any real need he is proposing tax incentives. So someone who can afford health care and may well need it can help you buy yours. My point is that when your state government requires you to have liability insurance to drive on state and federal roads it is completely reasonable. It is a requirement that if you access public roads you certify you are responsible to pay for any damages you may cause others. I agree. I recall state exemptions if you could prove a net worth of a high enough value in years past, though that is not at issue. The point is that there is no requirement for you to have full coverage, only liability. So if you get in an accident that is your fault you still have to pay your medical bills and pay for the damage to your vehicle. I guess your lost income and tax revenue aren’t much concern there.
The problem I thought initially with the Baucus plan is that the government doesn’t own health care, at least not most of it. By what justification does the government insist you have insurance? Then again they do insist a business owner carry unemployment insurance. I recall a guy I knew who worked road construction. Over the winter the company he worked for would lay the work force off. They collected unemployment until the company was ready to start back up and they hired people back. It seemed perfectly fine to him. I can’t lay myself off, but I don’t want to anyway. It just bugs me that people work the system. Another thing I heard Judge Napalitano say once was that Social Security was the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. When I was young I remember the fight in congress to end the practice of using surpluses in Social Security to pay for general fund items. In the corporate world they call that embezzlement. I’m 52. I neither expect nor want to see a dime from Social Security and if you are 30… LOL But I digress…
I hadn’t looked at the constitution for a while, but the other day I did. After what I heard the judge say today I did again. It was particularly interesting after I read an article about the first amendment and that we tend to err and say congress grants the right of free speech. Read what it says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In case you missed it it says congress cannot restrict your right to free speech. It is considered natural law, that you were born with a right to free speech and the government has no right to take it away. That is why McCain-Feingold is headed back to the Supreme Court. It is perhaps exquisite irony that Senator McCain lost his bid for the presidency while his savvy opponent opted out and outspent him 2 to 1. That’s just an aside, but cash remains the greatest mandate in politics. Again, I digress…
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution enumerates the powers of congress. What the judge said was that there is no right whatsoever to legislate health care. To be clear consider the 10th amendment from the bill of rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When the United States was being formed there were years of arguments between those who thought states should have power and those who favored a strong federal government. They compromised. Compromise often proves wise. I should point out that some people interpret “providing for the general welfare” or other statements to mean we have a right to health care. Any such broad interpretations would necessarily mean a right to groceries, a nice house, etc… And for many that might be fine, but they tried that in the Soviet Union and it didn’t work so well.
The commerce clause though is where most extra-constitutional law is justified. As the judge pointed out seeing your doctor hardly constitutes “interstate commerce” and the point of the clause was Madison’s wanting to prevent states from creating tariffs and blocking interstate trade. Ironically this is precisely what congress has done with health insurance! Again as the judge pointed out, removing this highly questionable regulation would quickly drive down health insurance costs. He’s got a point. Does every man in New York need to insure for breast enhancement?
I often talk with my European friends and think it odd that after an election they assemble a government. We have constitutional government and consistency, a consistency that is unmatched in modern history. Yet when I look at the constitution it suddenly seems illusory. Every member of congress, the military, the president and I suppose other offices of the government takes an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. Is that now somewhat quaint and dated? Do a search on “negative rights” and you will see a popular view now is that the bill of rights is “negative” because it says what government can’t do to you. It doesn’t say what government must do for you. I have seen videos of our president talking about this idea.
If congress wants to make whatever laws it wants and let the courts decide if they are constitutional then are they upholding their oath? The president seems happy to wade into murky waters. Do we even care about our constitution any more? Here is a simple question. If those in the highest offices in our land are picking which parts of the law they wish to uphold and which parts to ignore than can we still say we are, in the truest sense, a nation operating on a solid legal foundation?
I am concerned that our current fiscal irresponsibility is putting our economy and thus our nation at risk. What we put at risk cannot begin to exceed the value of our principles and our character as a nation. Therein lies the rub. The greatest nation and success story on earth can only hold to that claim as long as it holds to the wisdom and principles of it’s founders… The power of government is granted by the people. They work for us! I close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “Any government big enough to give the people everything they want is big enough to take everything they have.” We should decide whether to throw out or keep the constitution.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 at 7:00 PM and is filed under social commentary.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
An Inconvenient Document?
I was astonished by something I heard Judge Andrew Napalitano say today on Neil Cavuto’s show. I should preface this with a thought I had about the bill Senator Max Baucus is introducing. Senator Baucus plans to require every American to have health insurance. Now pragmatically if you are a young self employed person who doesn’t see a need to spend $4,000 a year for decades before you have any real need he is proposing tax incentives. So someone who can afford health care and may well need it can help you buy yours. My point is that when your state government requires you to have liability insurance to drive on state and federal roads it is completely reasonable. It is a requirement that if you access public roads you certify you are responsible to pay for any damages you may cause others. I agree. I recall state exemptions if you could prove a net worth of a high enough value in years past, though that is not at issue. The point is that there is no requirement for you to have full coverage, only liability. So if you get in an accident that is your fault you still have to pay your medical bills and pay for the damage to your vehicle. I guess your lost income and tax revenue aren’t much concern there.
The problem I thought initially with the Baucus plan is that the government doesn’t own health care, at least not most of it. By what justification does the government insist you have insurance? Then again they do insist a business owner carry unemployment insurance. I recall a guy I knew who worked road construction. Over the winter the company he worked for would lay the work force off. They collected unemployment until the company was ready to start back up and they hired people back. It seemed perfectly fine to him. I can’t lay myself off, but I don’t want to anyway. It just bugs me that people work the system. Another thing I heard Judge Napalitano say once was that Social Security was the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. When I was young I remember the fight in congress to end the practice of using surpluses in Social Security to pay for general fund items. In the corporate world they call that embezzlement. I’m 52. I neither expect nor want to see a dime from Social Security and if you are 30… LOL But I digress…
I hadn’t looked at the constitution for a while, but the other day I did. After what I heard the judge say today I did again. It was particularly interesting after I read an article about the first amendment and that we tend to err and say congress grants the right of free speech. Read what it says.
In case you missed it it says congress cannot restrict your right to free speech. It is considered natural law, that you were born with a right to free speech and the government has no right to take it away. That is why McCain-Feingold is headed back to the Supreme Court. It is perhaps exquisite irony that Senator McCain lost his bid for the presidency while his savvy opponent opted out and outspent him 2 to 1. That’s just an aside, but cash remains the greatest mandate in politics. Again, I digress…
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution enumerates the powers of congress. What the judge said was that there is no right whatsoever to legislate health care. To be clear consider the 10th amendment from the bill of rights.
When the United States was being formed there were years of arguments between those who thought states should have power and those who favored a strong federal government. They compromised. Compromise often proves wise. I should point out that some people interpret “providing for the general welfare” or other statements to mean we have a right to health care. Any such broad interpretations would necessarily mean a right to groceries, a nice house, etc… And for many that might be fine, but they tried that in the Soviet Union and it didn’t work so well.
The commerce clause though is where most extra-constitutional law is justified. As the judge pointed out seeing your doctor hardly constitutes “interstate commerce” and the point of the clause was Madison’s wanting to prevent states from creating tariffs and blocking interstate trade. Ironically this is precisely what congress has done with health insurance! Again as the judge pointed out, removing this highly questionable regulation would quickly drive down health insurance costs. He’s got a point. Does every man in New York need to insure for breast enhancement?
I often talk with my European friends and think it odd that after an election they assemble a government. We have constitutional government and consistency, a consistency that is unmatched in modern history. Yet when I look at the constitution it suddenly seems illusory. Every member of congress, the military, the president and I suppose other offices of the government takes an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. Is that now somewhat quaint and dated? Do a search on “negative rights” and you will see a popular view now is that the bill of rights is “negative” because it says what government can’t do to you. It doesn’t say what government must do for you. I have seen videos of our president talking about this idea.
If congress wants to make whatever laws it wants and let the courts decide if they are constitutional then are they upholding their oath? The president seems happy to wade into murky waters. Do we even care about our constitution any more? Here is a simple question. If those in the highest offices in our land are picking which parts of the law they wish to uphold and which parts to ignore than can we still say we are, in the truest sense, a nation operating on a solid legal foundation?
I am concerned that our current fiscal irresponsibility is putting our economy and thus our nation at risk. What we put at risk cannot begin to exceed the value of our principles and our character as a nation. Therein lies the rub. The greatest nation and success story on earth can only hold to that claim as long as it holds to the wisdom and principles of it’s founders… The power of government is granted by the people. They work for us! I close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “Any government big enough to give the people everything they want is big enough to take everything they have.” We should decide whether to throw out or keep the constitution.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 at 7:00 PM and is filed under social commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.