Today we give thanks for God's bounty, those who codified our freedom in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, our families and friends. Unfortunately, we are facing a clear and present danger to the American way of life -- aided and abetted by corrupt and complacent politicians and political parties who are acting in their own self-interest rather than in the interests of "We the People."

So as you enjoy your day, give thanks that our founding fathers provided a mechanism for removing politicians from office in an orderly manner. It is now time to take action and I can think of no better day than to renew our pledge to continue our freedoms for the sake of future generations who will be inheriting our great nation. 

The liberal left and their socialist agenda ...

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, discusses the constitutionality of healthcare reform … based on quotes offered up from those who interpret the Constitution liberally – finding within in its 6 pages and 4618 words authority for the Federal government to do everything that is specifically prohibited. Here is a short document which has run the nation for over 200 years – as opposed to a 2000+ page document which purports to solve a non-existent problem with legislation which has yet to be written and which grants the Executive Branch of the government unlimited and unprecedented powers over the citizens of the United States.

Let’s consider what Ruth has written …

'Illegal health reform'? Not quite.

“Is Congress going through the ordeal of trying to enact health-care reform only to have one of the main pillars -- requiring individuals to obtain insurance -- declared unconstitutional? An interesting debate for a constitutional law seminar. In the real world, not a big worry.”

The first big mistake is to consider that constitutional matters are not a big worry. Whenever the freedom of American citizens is being challenged, it is a very big deal.

"’This issue is not serious,’ says Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration.

Walter Dellinger is greatly mistaken.

“But it's being taken seriously in some quarters, so it's worth explaining where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose an individual mandate. There are two short answers: the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.”

No matter how tortured the explanation offered by far-left radicals, the commerce clause was not designed as a weapon to usurp the freedom of Americans, but to regulate the orderly commerce between the states. It was meant to promote trade practices, customs and standards which are the underpinning of transactions between willing parties who have freely agreed to engage in such activities.

The tortured explanation …

“First, the commerce clause. Spending on health care consumes 16 percent -- and growing -- of the gross domestic product. There is hardly an individual activity with greater effect on commerce than the consumption of health care.”

“If you arrive uninsured at an emergency room, that has ripple effects through the national economy -- driving up costs and premiums for everyone. If you go without insurance, that limits the size of the pool of insured individuals and -- assuming you are young and healthy -- drives up premium costs.”

One could make the case that if illegal aliens subvert our healthcare system and work rules, they are also affecting our economy and those elected officials and legislators who attempt to provide them with the benefits of citizenship are aiding and abetting a criminal act while diminishing the freedom of American citizens. 

The problem starts and ends with the democrats and their political agenda …

“The clause empowers Congress ‘to regulate commerce . . . among the several states,’ which may not sound terribly far-reaching. But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to cover local activities with national implications.”

And their complicit interpreters in the Supreme Court …

“In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the justices ruled that even though an activity may "be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."

“Thus, the court said, Congress was entitled to tell Roscoe Filburn how much wheat he could grow to feed his own chickens. Surely, then, Congress could require Filburn's grandson to buy health insurance.”

Idiocy, to say the least.

“Congress clearly has authority to, in effect, require employees to purchase health insurance for their old age by imposing a payroll tax to fund Medicare. It's odd for the same conservatives bemoaning a government takeover of health care to complain about requiring that people turn to the private marketplace.”

“Which brings us to the alternative source of congressional authority, the ‘Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.’

“The individual mandate is to be administered through the tax code: On their forms, taxpayers will have to submit evidence of adequate insurance or, unless they qualify for a hardship exemption, pay a penalty.”

The imposition of a healthcare tax cannot be linked to the running of an efficient and orderly government. In fact, healthcare as a constitutional guarantee is a non-starter. Especially when the states already exert a major control over the delivery of healthcare within the states.

“Balkin cites a 1950 Supreme Court case upholding a tax on marijuana distributors. ‘It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed,’ the court said. ‘The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary.’"

Sounds like the individual mandate to me.

The last word …

Whenever corrupt men act out of political or financial self-interest to bend the Constitution to their will and for the purpose of supporting their corrupt or self-serving activities, especially activities which eliminate  or diminish the freedom of Americans – the matter rises to the level of tyranny and compels us to resist the diminution of our freedom at all costs. 

Whether it is stimulus funds to assist a segment of the financial community and which disfavors the savings and commerce of ordinary Americans; the provision of healthcare which demands that every citizen act in accordance with government dictate for the benefit of private interests; the taking of private property from one individual to give to another individual so long as the transfer benefits the state or the regulation of the economy based on nothing more the supposition about the climate – these are all unconstitutional acts which demand a redress in our courts and our polling places.

No fancy words or convoluted legal opinions – do these matters rise to the level of unfairly depriving American citizens their freedom in favor of a corrupt political party who is seeking to subvert the very Constitution it purports to defend? In fact, a case may be made that every elected official and representative of the people will have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution should they vote yea on matters which reduce our freedoms and make us more vulnerable to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

But it all starts with honest brokers – and as we have seen, there are those in Washington who have gone far beyond government service and need to be recalled or denied office – if not prosecuted for crimes against the people.

We the people need to decide if we want the likes of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempting to turn our democracy into a socialist nation ruled by a corrupt governing elite? And it is not limited to the democrats, we have been ill-served by the Republicans with the exception of Ronald Reagan. But, this remains the sole question that should be asked in 2010 and 2012: do we want liberty or will well allow the corrupt and complacent politicians to guide us into slavery to a corrupt government system?

-- steve

Reference Links:

Ruth Marcus - Why a health-care mandate is constitutional