Saturday, July 7, 2012

Obamacare. Ugly. Dangerous. Unconstitutional.

I was asked recently, why I didn’t like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”; AKA “Obamacare”. 

There are a host of reasons, but let’s start with the Constitution: 

Article 1 Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution:  

*The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 

*To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 

*To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; 

*To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; 

*To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 

*To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

*To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 

*To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; 

*To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; 

*To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; 

*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

*To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 

*To provide and maintain a Navy; 

*To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 

*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 

*To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings 

*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 in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof


There are certain and well defined powers that Congress IS granted. Things that they are SUPPOSED to do; nowhere do I find in there the authority to force me to purchase something or to take something from me (my property, which in this case is my money) in order to give it to someone else (this is called redistribution, and is done for a faulty ideal of “fairness”).

Many of the clauses of the Constitution have been misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

Some are:
            *The Necessary and Proper Clause

            *The General Welfare Clause

            *The Vesting Clause

            *The Implied Powers Clause 

Thomas Jefferson, in his opinion regarding the Constitutionality of a National Bank said this in 1791(Italics and spelling original; again red is my emphasis):

“1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum(*) for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers.

*ad libitum: “at ones pleasure”; that marked in red is my own emphasis 

Jefferson highlights a couple of things; first, that when our elected officials find a phrase in the Constitution that they think might have two meanings, they are to see which one FITS the document, not just decide that because it says “X”, that “Y and Z” will naturally follow; and two, that regardless of how convenient doing “Y and Z” might make things, if they are not necessary, they are not allowed. 

Now, is insurance good? Yes, absolutely. However forcing you to purchase it is tyranny; some people don’t want it, some people don’t need it. Insurance is a gamble; the insurance company gambles that you will pay them, with the probability that you won’t need it, or won’t need much of it, back.

Never before in the history of our nation has the government ever assumed that they could coerce you to buy a product that you didn’t want or need. Never before has the “commerce clause” been so bastardized--and it has been grossly abused regularly. 

The Constitution, a divine document, was written through the inspiration of our Heavenly Father, and is based on the eternal principles of agency and self government.  We have the gift of Agency from our Heavenly Father; the opportunity to choose for ourselves what we will do, and if we will be obedient.

When the government comes in and tells me I MUST do something, that’s a twisted, progressive ideal; that was Satan’s plan. 

Barak Obama had this to say about the Constitution:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf…”


(Red is my emphasis) 

Apparently Mr. O doesn’t understand that that was what the Founding Fathers WANTED. "Economic Justice" was never part of the Constitution for a reason, why is this a hard concept? It was a document designed to protect YOU and ME from government encroachment and tyranny. It’s NOT SUPPOSED to grant that the government is to do something for you outside of protecting your life, your liberty and your ability to pursue happiness (which in the founding generation meant, in part, your acquisition of property). 

So, I don’t like Obamacare from a Constitutional standpoint because, regardless of what the SCOTUS gave us this week, government mandated healthcare is NOT constitutional (some will argue that because the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional, that meant it is; no, that just means it’s legal. They also upheld slavery at one time, and we know that it most certainly was NEVER constitutional.)

Other things that bother me greatly, aside from the assault on my personal agency are the fact that it’s a financial nightmare; at a time when we are already in dire straits, this bill is financial Armageddon. 

Justice Roberts, siding with the majority--which boggles, called it a tax, so it’s now the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, and the bill originated in the wrong house: this alone should have been enough to throw it out. A very wise man named Frederic Bastiat called this type of “taxation” “Legalized Plunder”. It is not a proper function of government to take from you, and give to me; be it welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, health care; anything where you have to give up money for a non enumerated governmental function is nothing more than redistribution of wealth--a plank from the Communist Manifesto.

When Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” that was a GIGANTIC red flag, but then, countless ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES did not even READ the blasted thing, yet they voted on it because they got backroom deals with secret handshakes--sounds like Korihor to me. 

Progressives want nothing more than to control our lives, to dictate every facet. Grandma may not get that pacemaker, because at 102 years of age, she’s outlived her usefulness to the collective. Someone who is obese and on hypertension meds, my not get more meds, because they are just too darn fat to justify their lives. Go to YouTube and look up George Bernard Shaw’s comments regarding Eugenics. These people are real, and they are evil. 

The elitist mentality that says they know better than me, how to run my own life is straight from the playbook of the Adversary. “Not one soul will make a mistake”; I have too much faith to let some advisory board decide what is, and what is acceptable for ME. “Men are that they might have joy”, not “men are that they might be manipulated by the government”. 

I have great hope that the SCOTUS last week is a stealth operation by the Chief Justice, many don’t believe so, but here are three items for your perusal that give me that hope; that and the calm whisperings of the Spirit that remind me “it’s going to be OK” just like President Hinckley said he reminded himself every day after Sister Hinckley died. 






Healthcare can be done at a state level via the 10th Amendment, but that's another discussion.


I know there are much smarter people than me that are up in arms and calling Justice Roberts a coward, but these three pieces give me great hope.

4 comments:

mommyx12 said...

Yes, nastier than nasty. Things are not looking good. Hey I have a question for you. I'll shoot you an email.

Tricia

mommyx12 said...

Or maybe I won't. Can't find your email anywhere. If you get a second maybe you could get it to me.

vpsmith14@yahoo.com

James Black said...

So - what are you feelings about gay marriage?

Jeannetta said...

James, less government is better. I believe acting on homosexual attractions are sinful, but I also believe that the government has no place in telling me who I can and cannot marry. If we can get the government OUT of the marrying business, and return it to the churches where it belongs, then I'm find with each denomination deciding for themselves. Until such a time as that, I believe we need a marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.