Skip to content

Due Power Abuses Breed Corruption

October 29, 2009

There are two linchpins of power that the federal government relies upon to exercise overreaching control over the Citizens of this nation. Both of these examples are due powers that the federal government necessarily has, the problem is that they are often times abused.

These two particular clauses found in the Constitution, clauses pertaining to commerce and taxation, have been corrupted by a combination of various court decisions.

Therein rests the largest part of the problems this nation experiences today. We are no longer a nation of free people governed by a Supreme Law of the Land, we are a nation of subjects ruled over by legislators, judges and case law. Legislatures, at the local, state and federal levels have taken the attitude that they can pass any law they want to and that it will stand until such time as courts render it Unconstitutional.

For an unadulterated glimpse, think about a complete ban on owning guns reaching within one’s own home, which stands for decades.  Any common sense thinking person knows that legislation of this kind cannot stand up to the Second Amendment. Yet, for so many years, such bans have stood because courts have simply refused to strike them down until the “perfect case” comes along.  Rubbish this is.

Today we have this huge health care reform debate going. First, it is disingenuous to claim this debate is about care, it isn’t about care at all.  It is really about paying for care.  I most certainly wish that the players would be honest about that actuality, but alas, too many politicians just cannot be honest.  If they were honest about their goals, the people would reject them and they know it.  Second, we have several bills coming down the pike in the U.S. Congress, bills which abhorrently claim to be about health care reform, that contain the so called “public option”.

Government being in direct competition with private sector business is an affront to the free market. It is a serious threat to private property.  It is said this option is meant to “keep the insurance industry honest”.  Hardly.  This amounts to a referee being a player in a football game.  When the maker and enforcer of the rules are players, they have a distinct advantage – one that will see them win the game no matter what other players do.  Common sense applying people can see easily what foolishness this is.

Now we hear that legislators are trying to impose a mandate on the purchase of health insurance.  They intend to impose penalties, in the form of taxation, on any who do not buy what they say we must buy.  They are going so far as to claim the commerce clause as the basis by which to impose this duty, well, those who will actually answer the question about where government draws the authority to impose such a command, anyway.

If the commerce clause affords the federal government the authority to make this kind of dictatatorial declaration, and impose taxation penalties if we resist or refuse, then the federal government can force us to buy anything they deem fit.  It would mean that even after we pay our due taxation, what money remains is not really ours at all.  It would mean that the federal government has total control over every dollar that anyone has.  It would mean we could be forced to buy the vehicles they tell us to.  It would mean that we could be forced, under threat of penalty, to buy lawn fertilizer, food, energy, clothing or any other good or service.  It would also mean that the federal government could dictate what we could not buy. So much for being secure in our personal affects.

This interpretation of the commerce clause would afford the government unlimited and endless power over the people, and everything else,  in this country.  That flies in the face of the overall purpose of the Constitution of itself, which was to expressly limit the powers of the very government it created. This interpretation is the antithesis of common sense.

Why would the Framers allocate so much toil laying out enumerated powers if the commerce clause was meant to empower the federal government the ability to exact total control over everything anyway? Why specifically empower the federal government with the tasks of coining and establishing the value of money if the commerce clause gave them 100% authority over all money and the spending of it?  Nonsense.

There can only be two answers to that vein of questioning. Either the Constitution itself was the biggest bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American people or the courts have misinterpreted the Framers intention regarding that clause and legislatures have used this body of case law to circumvent the Constitution itself and thus, our individual liberties themselves.

Even Harry Reid knows that there is a huge problem regarding an imposed “public option” and that is exactly why he came out with this supposed “opt out” provision.  This is an attempt to avoid a judicial challenge based on that commerce clause, which could result in the federal government’s abuse of the commerce clause case law being obliterated once and for all.

Taxation was intended to fund enumerated powers.  It was not meant to be a means of social engineering and control over Citizens.  Taxation was never meant to be a means of punishment, but it most certainly is used that way today by every level of government. One person’s incentive is another person’s punishment.

There was a time when I believed government was tasked with incentivizing the population. I found justification in that action to rest in another clause in the Constitution.  “Promoting the general welfare” seemed to support such a position, especially when viewing it here.    How wrong I was to believe such a thing.  Here is an example of why my belief changed.  I think of Don King, yes, the boxing promoter.  Don King promoted Mike Tyson fights but his promotion never mandated that I purchase pay per view events and I was most certainly never punished for not buying them.  To employ the same “logic” as some on the left do today, wouldn’t Mike Tyson’s fights have been more affordable for everyone if everyone was forced to participate or pay a fine if they did not?  Sheer craziness.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a distinct difference between promoting and mandating.

Must there be government? Yes.  Must government be funded? Yes.  Does this require taxation? Yes.  Should every American be taxed? Yes.

These things being true in no way entitle those operating government to infringe upon our civil liberties with legislative code.  The Bill of Rights, among other amendments, were all created and added into the Constitution to avoid these very happenings.  For far too long, enumerated powers, limitations, and civil liberties have been ignored as if they are not even there.

The establishment of legislation, and case law pertaining to it, along with an attitude that these things somehow overshadow the Constitution itself, is responsible for the precarious state this nation is in today.

There is a reason our Constitution isn’t fifteen hundred pages long but proposed legislation is.  The vast majority of such bills contain text trying to find a path around the mandates of the Supreme Law of the Land.  The Constitution is simple and straightforward and it was written that way for a very good reason. It doesn’t take thousands of pages to write down simple truths, but it sure does take plenty of pages to do anything but that.

Hey, I am no Constitutional scholar but I am a Citizen who can understand what the Constitution means.  It is prudent to recall that the Framers put that document together to do exactly that. They wanted everyday people to understand it.  On the flipside, lawyers and judges have spent decade after decade complicating the legislative code to the point that everyday folks have no reasonable means of understanding the code they created.  They have done this intentionally in order to exact controls they are specifically barred from having.  One cannot follow, or substantially oppose, that which they cannot understand.  Hence, complete control can be exacted over an uninformed and unsuspecting population.

Those who have been in elected office over my lifetime have almost entirely legislated away the Constitution, and our civil Liberties along with it. It is passed time for that train come to a swift halt.

How do we stop that train then?

We stop that train by reading the Constitution and asking those running for elected offices, and those holding them,  what part of the Constitution justifies the positions and actions they are advocating.  We reject the case law excuse. We reject the obfuscation and we refuse to cast votes for those who will not answer with substance and we toss from office those who refuse to uphold the oath they take when sworn in. You know, the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Here is a link to the “Healthcare Bill” online. 1,990 pages it is.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: