Very recently, Speaker of the House Pelosi was asked by CNS News, “… where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNS News: “Yes, yes I am.”

Later, Pelosi’s press secretary went on record as saying, “That is not a serious question.” My question: “Asking for Constitutional clarification is not a serious question?”

I have another question just how many of our Senators and Representatives do you think have actually read the Health Reform Act? Yes, I think you are right. Not very many.

Regardless, it seems to me that it is not within Congress’ or President Obama’s authority to dictate to any citizen whether an individual must carry health insurance. How about you? How do you feel about it?

It is like automobile seat belt laws. I know that there is evidence to support the use of seat belts. Still, in my naive way of thinking, I cannot accept being fined for not wearing my seatbelt. There is no evidence that my not wearing a seatbelt will hurt any one else.

So then, this law, the seatbelt law, is a law for my own good. A law passed by those that know better for my own good. Whatever happened to my unalienable rights? I realize that those unalienable rights are not part of the Constitution but they are words on which this nation was founded (The Declaration of Independence).

Some would argue that enacting a Public Health Policy requiring health insurance under penalty of prosecution falls under the Congress’ Constitutional prerogative or right and duty “to promote the general welfare”. I agree.Promoting the general welfare is Congress’ obligation. However, it is not their prerogative, duty or right to dictate the general welfare. Promoting and dictating are two distinct words with completely different meanings.

Any law that would require a citizen to insure himself for his own protection under penalty of prosecution is not promoting. That is dictating. It is enforcement, not a suggestion.

Do not confuse the likes of auto liability insurance, which is an enforced law in most of the country, with a required health insurance mandate.

Liability insurance protects you from the consequences of someone else’s actions. If someone causes harm or damage to you or your property, you have recourse. Liability insurance protects you from someone else’s negligence not your own.

Requiring liability insurance is promoting the general welfare. That mandate protects you from others. Health insurance protects you for you. It does not protect you from someone else.

Requiring me or anyone else to have medical insurance under penalty of prosecution is just plain wrong.

Maybe we should also require mandatory life insurance, so that I can pay those exorbitant funeral costs. What do you think?

Bookmark It

The United States of America is a Republic. That is right. I said a republic. The media, politicians, bureaucrats, and all of us have mistakenly labeled our country a democracy. A democracy is not synonymous with a republic. Let me repeat, we are a republic. There is big difference.

Majority rules a democratic nation. A republic is a nation ruled by law. You may ask. What is wrong with being a democratic nation? Allow me to explain with an example.

Let us assume a community of people. We will also assume that there is a rapist or murderer among them. Someone of the community names and identifies a suspect.  Fearing for his well-being, the suspect runs away. A group of people set out to find him and they capture him.

In the heat of emotion and because the crime was so horrendous, the group decides that justice must be served there and then. They take a show of hands. Most agree that he deserves swift and just punishment. The majority decides to punish the suspect.

I hesitate to call this group a mob. They are God-fearing, rational people. They are convinced of the suspect’s guilt. The majority believe in his guilt. The suspect’s fate is sealed, majority rules. That is a democracy.

Luckily, for the suspect the police chief arrives and says, “Stop! You cannot take the law into your own hands. This man must be judged by the rule of law. He must be tried before a jury of his peers.”

Not only must the suspect be tried before a jury of his peers, but also the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. In a republic, the rule is by law not by a majority’s consensus.

Are you living in a democracy or a republic? You get to choose.

There are those that will argue that a movement like Civil Rights is proof of democracy in action. Wrong, again.

The Civil Rights movement and subsequent enacted laws did nothing but follow the rule of law, our Constitution, the law of the land. It guarantees equal rights before the law. At the time, that was something that was not recognized.

You and I know that some of the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. But, by design or by forgetfulness the Constitution harbors no allusion to the superiority of one individual over another. If such language did exist, it was wisely omitted or discarded.

Politicians love democracies because they need only appease the majority. If politicians governed by the rule of law, some would agree and some would disagree, but all would know that the rule of law protects their rights.

Are your rights protected? The Constitution is no more than an extension of the Golden Rule. Are you following the Golden Rule?

Bookmark It