Iraqi Dinar Chat, Information, News, Facts, Guru Forums, RV and Revaluation info

Follow us! Follow us!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: the mugging of personal freedom

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    the mugging of personal freedom

    The mugging of personal freedom By David Harsanyi

    POSTED:*03 /24 / 2010 01 :00 :00 AM MDT

    What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?

    When House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., was recently asked to identify where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance, he replied, "Under several clauses; the good and welfare clause and a couple others." For those of you who aren't familiar with the " good and welfare" clause, it states that "The Congress shall have Power to make Citizens of each State compelled to partake of the Privileges of Health Care Insurance, & those who refuse will be fined, charged with a misdemeanor crime or lashed (or receive Medicaid)."

    Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Constitution featured a "good and welfare" clause though, obviously, Washington has done a laudable job fulfilling the latter part of this imaginary passage. (We'd be better off mandating that elected officials own a copy of the Constitution.)

    It has, actually, been widely speculated that Conyers, a lawyer, was referring to the "general welfare" clause that gives Congress the authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare. The other "clauses" he mentions are likely the long-abused "commerce clause," which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce .*.*. among the several states."

    Attorneys general from 14 states and other state legislatures disagree with Conyers, and have already mounted legal challenges to the constitutionality of individual mandates. Few people believe they will be successful in their admirable cause.

    As a layman, I have little business wading into the intricacies of constitutional law though, in my limited understanding of this nation's founding tenets, forcing patriots to buy something in the private market seems to undermine the entire point of the project. Judging from the celebratory mood of the Democrats, who shrug off questions of constitutionality and individual rights, my reading of history is obviously way off the mark.

    Surely it is inarguable that the debate over a national mandate epitomizes the central ideological divide in the country today. In broad terms, there is one side that believes liberty can be subverted for the collective good because government often makes more efficient and more moral choices.
    Then there is the other side, which believes that people who believe such twaddle are seditious pinkos. And judging from nearly every poll, a majority disapprove of President Barack Obama and his defining legislation. Whether many of them understand the mugging of freedoms in legal terms or intellectual terms or only in intuitive ones, it doesn't matter.

    Richard M. Esenberg, professor of law at Marquette, explained the consequences of Obamacare like this: "If Congress can require you to buy health insurance because of the ways in which your uncovered existence effects interstate commerce or because it can tax you in an effort to force you to do any old thing it wants you to, it is hard to see what save some other constitutional restriction it cannot require you to do or prohibit you from doing."

    Come to think of it, I have a great idea: For the common good, everyone should be mandated to purchase a newspaper each day. (Thomas Jefferson understood that democracy suffers without a newspaper.) But you won't be able to purchase just any newspaper only the local one as we will eliminate the national market.

    Hey, why not?

    E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost. com and follow him on Twitter at @davidharsanyi.
    Last edited by bwilson52; 03-24-2010 at 09:40 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts