Not A Right

Last week I was talking to my oldest son, who informed me that finally the members of the union where he works were getting angry with President Obama and the Democrat Party. Why? Because they had been informed that John Deere would be subject to an additional $150 million tax liability due to the signing into law last Tuesday by President Obama the health care legislation, and that the union should not expect any bonuses. On the following day from when I spoke to my son, Caterpillar also announced that they, too, were going to have an increased tax liability of $100 million. Although I am happy to have these people on board now, it saddens me that it took a hit to their pocketbook for them to come around, and not the fact that the Constitution has been trampled upon by our elected officials. To me, that should be the paramaount and overriding cause for concern regarding any legislation: Is it Constitutional?

During all the debate, the supporters of this universal health care plan have not once pointed to the Constitution as their authority for what they were doing. They have appealed to emotional reasons as their justification. In fact, when asked last week where the Constitution permits such legislation from the Federal government, John Conyers, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who is head of the Congressional Committee which oversees:

1.The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.
2.Administrative practice and procedure.
3.Apportionment of Representatives.
4.Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
5.Civil liberties.
6.Constitutional amendments.
7.Criminal law enforcement.
8.Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories and possessions.
9.Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.
10.Interstate compacts generally.
11.Claims against the United States.
12.Members of Congress, attendance of members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
13.National penitentiaries.
14.Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and trademarks.
15.Presidential succession.
16.Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
17.Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United States.
18.State and territorial boundary lines.
19.Subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.

replied, “Under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the Constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

I guess the "couple others" clauses to which Rep. Conyers refers that permit this encroachment by the Federal government on our liberty must be the Good and Plenty Clause, or the Scrumpdillyicious Clause, or maybe even the Good and Yummy Clause, because as he has so comforted us, if this was not Constitutional "under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others," then good golly Miss Molly, he would not have allowed it to pass! (America, can we PLEASE stop sending men and women like this to Washington and place them in positions of authority who obviously are so CLUELESS as to what the Constitution actually says? Is that REALLY too much to ask? And by the way, in case you are reading this and you have never read the Constitution before, there really is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution, in spite of what our illustrious Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says. I also will have to disappoint you by informing you that there are no Good and Plenty, Scrumpdillyicious, or Good and Yummy Clauses, either. Sorry.)

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.” And I will add that this legislation also imposes fines for those who do not buy the mandated health care insurance. Funny, I do not recall any other "right" requiring anyone to purchase it. Hmmm.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A "right," then, is something that no one else has the moral authority to take away from someone else, because they are "unalienable," which means they are not transferable to another and neither are they capable of being repudiated; they are "self-evident," meaning that anyone with 1/10th of 1% of 1 brain cell should be able to understand; and they are "endowed by their Creator," meaning these rights come from God, and not some bureaucrat or politician in Washington, D.C. They are not something that is subject to the whims or doctrines of men.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says,

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let's say that no one chooses to be a doctor. (Many doctors have told me they will quit rather than continue working as doctors under this legislation.) If no one chooses to work as a doctor, then the government cannot provide "health care" as a "right," proving health care is not a "right," but a privilege received through a service provided by another.

As we demonstrated earlier, rights are derived from God, not government. If no one chooses to enter the medical profession as a doctor, then the government would have no other alternative than to have to force people to become doctors against their will, creating a class of slaves, and violating the 14th Amendment.