Health Care

While the Health care debate has been coalescing into something along the lines of a question of our patriotism, our compassion as humans, our survival as a nation even…. it bears some thought as to whether our ideals of morality ought always to be our guiding light as to our consensus on what is legal.

For a long time we have devolved into a morality and legality ruled by majority. We intervene in the law process by majority pressure as the rudder of the mainstream media has propelled it. It is not our system, but has become a competition to our system I think.

So this essay in the “Sense of Events” blog raised what I think are some questions worth pondering in our health care debate.

My question is this: Do the limits of the US Constitution actually mean anything here? Where in the text does it grant the Congress the power to take from you and me and give it, as charity, to others?

This is not a question about Congress’s power to tax. It is about its authority to use taxation for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution.

We already know Democrat Sen. Mark Warner’s answer: the Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the authority to pass the healthcare bill before it, but it doesn’t matter because Congress has trampled on the Constitution so long that there’s no reason to stop now.

I am confident that some persons would answer that the Constitution is a “living document.” As best as I can determine, what that means in practice is that its text and enumeration of powers can be ignored in order for the Congress to do what it wants. Occasionally the federal courts, including SCOTUS, hold this tendency in check, but not very well or often. And at least as often, the courts themselves have taken the “living document” approach rather liberally.

My answer is that the Congress has no such authority granted it. If indeed the state of health care is so dire that public monies must be used to pay directly for medical care of some people (and eventually everyone), then let Congress introduce a proposed amendment to the Constitution so the people and states may grant that authority. That Congress has already been paying for such care for decades doesn’t change the question or the principle at stake.

I might even support such an amendment provided there were appropriate checks and balances built into it. Neither the power granted to Congress nor its authority to tax for this or any other purpose can be unlimited.

Like it not, there is no authority in the Constitution giving Congress the power to spend public monies for charitable purpose

Does Morality Trump Legality?

It is ironic that the right now questions the left on this… albeit with different issues.

Privatisation leads to profitability

We supposedly knew that. But they are finding it out again:

there are significantly more profits to be made for state-owned companies and employees by transitioning to private ownership – especially in conjunction with competitiveness-boosting reforms.

As the USA leans more and more to a socialistic system where the government is seen as the answer to economic problems… you might want to read what the Swedish government is discovering.

States Rights, Tea Parties…What Do You Think?

Mostly we center on the economy anymore (in the news, personal conversations, blogs, etc)…. I know that gets the lion’s share of my own interest in reading news, etc. But what about the rumblings on States rights, what about the tea parties protesting our taxes and national debt? Are they hot air, just letting off pressure, or genuine attempts by informed citizens… or something else?

What do you think?

Sometimes I honestly don’t know what to make of some of these activities and I’d like to get a bead on what the real issues are.

For instance, this move to consolidate states rights. Is it too little, too late? Is the state the last bastion in a check on runaway federal spending? Or is it a way for citizens to have more say on issues? Are the courts and the federal delivering a one-two punch to the concept of states rights?

Those are things I question when looking at what is going on today.

Homeland Security Expansion

You may or may not be aware of these developments:

“A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, reports the Washington Times today.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report states.”

” The report, entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF link) was leaked to the Internet a few days ago. It also equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.

The document characterizes concerns about the economy, unemployment, the loss of U.S. sovereignty and the move towards global government as “rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet” which itself is defined as a potential tool for terrorists to network, build bombs, and send encrypted messages to each other.”

– from a post about Texas Governor Rick Perry

I don’t know about you… but this strikes me as ominous. Aren’t all those conversation “flags” simply topics that need discussion and part of what an alert citizen should concern themselves with, in debates, protests, and political action?

People all over the US are feeling pretty insecure and gun ownership is one response. Visit any Walmart and you know that ammunition is disappearing off the shelves quickly. This is more than “extremists” – this is a serious disconnect between the present congress and administration and the American People reasonable concerns. It ought to be handled that way and not drummed into a “Homeland alert” status.

Powerhouse Palin

I like that moniker better than the “barracuda” or.. shudder… the “pitbull” one.

Palin a news Powerhouse | The Anchoress

Palin a news Powerhouse….And a word of caution to Republicans from your friendly Anchoress: be mindful of how you receive a good. I’ve had several puckerfaced, ‘she should be at the top of the ticket, why are we stuck with McCain’ whiners writing to me. Hello: McCain chose her. That tells you something about him, and his instincts. Some of you barely knew who she was a week ago. Credit McCain for the introduction, and be GRATEFUL instead of whining. How you receive a good has a lot to do with whether more good comes your way.