Laying Down the Law

The Constitution is frequently referred to as the ‘Supreme Law of the Land.’ And no doubt, in the purely technical sense of the term it is indeed. But what is a law? It seems to me that a law compels, prohibits or directs the behavior of people to effect a specific outcome. Provided most people are disposed to obey laws, the law will have the desired result. For those people who are not inclined to obey laws the law has a second part—punishment for disobedience. This may be prison, fines or other retribution specified by the law and imposed by the courts. On the first part there can be no doubt that the Constitution is law. It establishes what the President, the Congress and the Federal Courts may and may not do. By virtue of the fact that the document actually creates these entities as well it certainly could be regarded as ‘Supreme.’ Unfortunately, on the second point the Constitution seems somewhat lacking in seeing to its own enforcement and proscribing punishment for failure to comply. Of course, there is the concept of ‘Checks and Balances’ between the three branches of government; however when all three branches are operating in collusion or complicity to violate the tenets of the Constitution, this concept of control becomes moot. Members can be impeached and removed from office for ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ But again, this is a function of Congress and if Congress is part in parcel with the Constitutional deception this method of enforcement is also found lacking. Just look at how many times it has been used; very few. The ballot box has proved to be a very ineffective method of correcting specific breaches of Constitutional authority. Changes occur very slowly and incrementally as a result of elections and laws once passed or programs once established are rarely, if ever reversed or overturned. Clearly it seems to me that the Framers doubted that any public servant would dare to blatantly disobey the Constitution. They had just fought and won a bloody war to throw off the yoke of a tyrant and establish this new nation by virtue of writing and ratifying the Constitution. They could not foresee that anyone called to serve would have disdain and disregard for the almost sacred document. As a result they must not have presumed a need for strict enforcement and punishment language to be included. The stature of the document would enforce itself they may have believed. For some time, the next generation or two it probably did. Sadly, that is not the case today. I believe that if we are to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the ‘Supreme Law of the Land,’ that task falls upon the States, the original authors. State governments, perhaps acting through an Article V Constitutional Convention must assert their power over the rogue federal government and right the ship before it is hopelessly swamped. I don’t come to this assertion lightly or quickly for I know the inherit dangers of a Constitutional Convention. But I believe that our nation with the current administration has reached a pivotal crossroad necessitating this drastic course of action. The very Constitutional foundation of our Republic and the preservation of freedom and liberty for future generations are at stake. These are desperate and dangerous times and thus demands swift, bold and decisive action. Men of courage must come forth if we are to preserve the nation that we inherited and pass it on intact, strong and free to our children and their children. Time is short.

Right-Hand, Left-Hand?

• Federal government in new Obamascare bill wants to regulate away public school lunches that are high in fat and cholesterol. The same federal government gives butter and cheese to public schools for lunches as a farm subsidy.
• President Obama's 'pay-czar' reviewing excessive bonuses paid to executives of General Motors and Chrysler, owned by...President Obama.

Are These Truths Self-Evident?

As I sit here on Sunday afternoon, March 21, 2010 I don’t know if the House of Representatives has voted on the Health Care Reform Bill or not; and if they have voted what the outcome was. The much larger matter is that they should not be voting on a measure like this at all. It is simply far beyond the constitutional constraints of the federal government to be contemplating the complete takeover and control of the nation’s health care system. The Constitution and Amendments do not authorize such power. The only thing that Congress could rightfully be debating about health care would be a constitutional amendment to grant such authority to the federal government. Short of that, the matter resides exclusively with the States and the People. At least that’s how the Framer’s saw the role of the federal government, the States and the People within the framework of the Constitution they ratified in 1789.

Across two centuries I hear the Founder’s cries of alarm, warning us that to ignore the clear and absolute wording and intent of the Constitution is worse than folly, it would be the first step on the path to tyranny and despotism. They knew something about that subject, having just freed themselves from the dictatorial fist of a capricious king in England after a protracted and very bloody war. The horrible price of freedom was forefront in their minds as they began to lay the foundation for a new governmental order to be enshrined in the Constitution. Their words and meanings were unambiguous as they carefully crafted each section. They did not intend to put forth a vague outline to be filled in over time by the whims of this man or that, this group or that, this political party or that. No, they knew the fallen state of mankind, the avarice of people and the nature of power. Men are made lower than the angels and no man is immune to temptation and corruption. If men were angels no government would be necessary. Thus they set out to frame a government not of great power over the people, but one constrained from usurping the rights and freedoms of the people; who were to hold power over the government. Government by the consent of the governed. Of the People, by the People and for the People. Government with a very limited, proscribed list of duties, powers and responsibilities; chief of them to protect the rights of the people which are given by God, not the government. No legislation ever passed by the government has given or granted people a right; that is something that can only be granted by God. The only thing granted by government legislation is an entitlement, giving one group of people power and authority to take the money, time, effort or property of another group of people.

Clearly then, those people whom we place in positions of public service within the government must possess a genuine, healthy fear and respect for the Constitution, an absolute understanding of their role, their authority and their constraints according to the text of the document. This is why our Founders were so insistent that only a moral, religious populous was fit to govern itself in this manner.

The Constitution is meant to be a pillar of marble not a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. To violate its precepts is the highest form of lawlessness, if not outright treason. For if we have no deference to the Constitution we have no country; we have anarchy and tyranny. This idea that the Constitution is merely an outline, a malleable lump of clay to be molded by each generation to suit its fancy is dangerous and subversive. The Constitution can be changed for necessities of the current age, but only by the laborious task of amendment. This is by design. A document so fundamental to the inter-generational structure of our government should not be changed easily or quickly for passing whims of the day.

The Constitution belongs to the People, not the federal government. It was written by the People to create the government. That which is created cannot be greater than the creator. It is not the proper role of government to tell the people what the Constitution means and what it empowers the federal government to do for and to the People. Rather, it is the role of the People to tell the federal government what the Constitution authorizes and empowers the federal government to do on behalf of the People, and, more importantly, what the federal government may not do. The Constitution codifies some of the more important rights conferred by God upon the People and charges the federal government to protect those rights. Furthermore, it recognizes in the Ninth Amendment that the list of God-given rights in the Constitution is incomplete, but that other rights given by God are still maintained by the People and in the Tenth Amendment clarifies that those powers and authorities not expressly awarded to the federal government are awarded to the States and the People. And be clear, the authority of the Congress is limited to Article 1, Section 8. The preamble is only a statement of intent; it is an explanation of why Congress is granted those powers in Article 1, Section 8. There are no powers granted in the preamble. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause merely empowers Congress to enact legislation to carry out its enumerated duties in Article 1, Section 8. If the Founders, wary of government to begin with, intended to give the federal government unlimited power and authority, why list a few specifics in Article 1, Section 8? That simply makes no sense. The idea that the Framers on the one hand would take the time to list the specific enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 and then on the other hand would grant unlimited power elsewhere in the Constitution is ludicrous. The words mean what they mean. For instance, the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to empower the federal government to prevent states from erecting unreasonable barriers to commerce between the various states. It was not intended as a carte blanche for the federal government to regulate, tax and direct every manner of business in the nation. Yet today it does just that. I don’t believe that the Framers ever envisioned a concept of penumbras and emanations.

Those men and women that we place in public office who seek to subvert the true original text and meaning of the Constitution, who trot out complex and subtle twists and turns of interpretation to hold it up as a living, changing document are little different that tyrants of old that our Founding Fathers were well acquainted with. They are the same today as then. Human nature has not changed in the last 100 or 1000 or 2000 years. Thus we must be just as vigilant today as 200 years ago for those who seek to bend the rules for personal gain and aggrandizement by trampling on our freedoms and liberties and eating out the very marrow of our nation’s sustenance.

So what are the People to do when an elected President, an elected Congress and even Supreme Court justices appointed by Presidents ignore the Constitution and impose their will upon the People? The Founders must have thought this eventuality beyond the realm of possibility. Given what they had just come through the idea that a public servant, entrusted with the maintenance of our Republic would ignore the very foundation and origin of that Republic must have seemed unfathomable. Once again we must return to the idea that only a moral people can govern themselves within a system such as this. Our public servants must possess a healthy fear and respect for the Constitution, the States and the People. Lacking this, all sorts and manner of mischief are possible and nearly inevitable. The most obvious solution is to vote the tyrants out and elect better servants. One problem with this method is that there are those politicians who run under false pretenses and become something quite contrary to what people thought they were voting for once in office. This seems to be happening with great regularity. In addition, people elected with good intentions sometimes become twisted by the bureaucratic establishment once they get to Washington and become drunk with power and the lust for money, the mother’s milk of politics. On the far other end of the spectrum is armed resistance which is what our Founders had to resort to in the Revolutionary War to ultimately throw off the yoke of tyranny under King George. We also fought a bloody civil war to try to resolve some of our differences. I pray God that we don’t ever get to that point again. In between these two extremes would be an approach that utilizes established remedies that reside mostly with the People acting through their State governments. It is, after all the People acting through the States who wrote the Constitution and established the federal government. It would seem logical that when the federal government will not right itself or yield to the desires of the People the State governments should step in. They can assert their power through the amendment and convention process. This can be a very dangerous procedure if unfriendly factions gain control of a Constitutional Convention and take it off in directions that would be disastrous for the good of the nation. However, given what is happening now inside the government, this might be worth the risk. Could things really get any worse? Perhaps and perhaps not. But I believe that we have arrived at a crossroads in the history of our nation. These are desperate times and may call for desperate measures if we are to preserve our freedoms and liberties; if we are to preserve our Republic and Constitution and pass on something to our children that resembles the nation that we inherited. Our health care system certainly needs some improvement. Given that, though, it is still the best on the face of the earth. And the fixes should be done at the State level with targeted solutions that preserve our freedoms, liberties and the free market system--which is the best hope for providing the most benefit for the most people without bankrupting the nation.

I pray that this will be our finest hour, that we will act in a manner deserving of the trust placed upon us by the Founders and Framers to guard the Republic and Constitution. They have given us a great gift. The question is can we keep it? We cannot afford to lose it.

The Morning/Mourning After Bill

In mourning,

I renounce my citizenship in this fascist country of Adolph Obama. He, Pelosi and Reid should be impeached for treason and imprisoned for the willful, blatant violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. Then Congress should be dissolved and a new one elected immediately. We can’t wait until November. As a God-fearing, patriotic American I cannot and will not participate in, subject me and family to and obey this illegal, unconstitutional piece of crap legislation; neither as a citizen, taxpayer or physician. Let it be perfectly clear, the federal government has declared war upon the American people. May God have mercy upon us all and may He preserve a remnant of the Constitution and the Republic so that America may be reconstituted for our posterity at some future time.

Lady Liberty Weeps

Tonight the Congress of the United States of America has committed an act of treason, blatantly violating the United States Constitution. I hold all who voted for the Health Care Reform Bill as traitors. The Republic of the United States of America has ceased to exist. I renounce my citizenship in this illegal, extra-constitutional nation. I will not participate as citizen, tax-payer or physician in this heinous action. The federal government by this action has declared war upon the American people. May God have mercy upon us all.

Physician Heal Thyself

In the early 1970's I recall a speaker at one of our PreMed/PreDent Society meetings in college. A physician from Dallas had a warning for we future doctors. He strongly admonished us not to sign contracts with private insurance companies (pre-dates HMO's) or Medicare/Medicaid, not to accept payment from these plans but only direct cash payments from the patients and not to allow these plans to set our fees or demand discounts. We should certainly provide billing statements for the patient to get reimbursed from their insurance providers and for big bills allow them to collect first and then pay us. But our fee is our fee and whatever they can get reimbursed from their insurance plan is what they get. The contract is between the plan and the patient, not the doctor. The physicians should not be parties to insurance payment contracts with patients. Boy was he right! Sadly, because health insurance became tied to employment without the option of portability or the ability to buy across state lines or the ability of small groups to band together to buy cheaper policies; large insurance companies began going to large employers, signing up their huge workforce and then going to doctors demanding contracts with them for discounts and set fees in order for the doctor to keep his patients and the patient to keep their doctor. Nothing more than high-tone extortion of the doctors by the insurance companies. During that time period the American Medical Association represented about 70% of U.S. physicians but was totally ineffective in heading off this bastardization of the physician-patient relationship. It was during this same time that MediCare instituted Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG's) which dictated to doctors and hospitals how they could treat patients for various afflictions and how long they could be kept in the hospital. Again, the A.M.A. was unable to avert this train wreck. This heralded the decline of the influence of the A.M.A. as its leadership was taken over more and more by leftists in bed with the government. Membership began to bleed off to the point today where only about 17% of U.S. physicians belong. Yet the media and government love to run to the 'doctor's union' anytime they want to report what doctors think about this or that. Pure poppycock. It is now a toothless tiger. The fact that virtually all physicians are under contract with myriad insurance plans and with Medicare/Medicaid, that their fees are set by these entities, that they must accept discounted fees to be allowed onto the plans and that many practices are actually owned outright by the plans thus making the physicians merely employees or contractors has totally perverted the cost/price/value equation beyond recognition. This is one factor responsible for ballooning health care costs; the separation of the provider from the consumer in the payment of fees for services rendered. Doctors don't know how much stuff costs and neither do the patients. People don't know if they're getting a good deal or not. All the doctor knows is that many times he has to argue with some non-physician to get a test done. If the doctor and patient know exactly what everything costs they can sit down and discuss the treatment plan and various options that provide the best care for the best price. Giving the patient more choices in the health insurance marketplace by allowing portability from the severing of health insurance from employment, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and allowing small groups to band together and buy better priced large policies would be a good start in bringing down the cost of health care and health insurance and making it available to a larger segment of society. In addition, getting the doctors out of the insurance picture by ending physician contracting and fee setting, having doctors be paid directly by the patients who then get reimbursed by their insurance plan at whatever rate they have agreed to would help the cause as well. Also, let individuals set up medical savings accounts similar to their IRA's. Finally, rational tort reform and scaling back onerous taxes and regulations on pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers would complete the reform picture.

Rights vs. Entitlements

A Right does not require the time, money, property or effort of other people. Entitlements do. Stop and think; Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from Unreasonable Search & Seizure, the Right to Bear Arms; all Rights referenced in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and none require input from other people. On the other hand; Medicare, Social Security, Universal Health Care, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Federal Minimum Wage, Housing Subsidies, Transportation Subsidies, Education Subsidies; all require something (mostly tax money) from other people; and all Entitlements.

In the current debate it is disingenuous to call for a Right to Health Care. Universal Federal Health Care/Insurance cannot be a right; it requires time, money and effort of other people. It is just another entitlement. And it is an entitlement which the U.S. Constitution does not empower or authorize the federal government to provide. (Frankly, most other federal entitlements actually are not authorized by the Constitution either) Thus, it could only be provided by the States or the Federal Government following passage of an empowering Constitutional Amendment.