Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Destruction of Freedom

I feel a little naive this morning.  Naive and yet at the same time, hardly surprised.  You see I'm not sure that there's anything that can happen during this administration's horrible rein that can surprise me any longer.  The first amendment?  Out the window with a simple mandate decreed from on high.  States rights?  What are those?  Does anyone remember?

Yet I feel the sting of my naivety because I did truly believe that the Supreme Court was going to uphold the Constitution this week.  Perhaps I had too much faith that they would uphold the rule of law?  I'd waited, more or less patiently, for the ruling to be handed down, clinging to the belief that the justices would at least be able to see that compelling every person in our country to buy anything was quite simply unconstitutional.

I'm sure there are people out there who will tell us that we can't really know what we're talking about (I've already heard that sentiment once this morning).  After all, this is Constitutional Law.  It's much too big and scary for us lowly commoners, with our mundane thoughts and the day to day concern of feeding our families, to understand on our own.  We haven't heard our own feet echoing up and down the hallowed halls of academia for nearly long enough to begin to wrap our little brains around such lofty ideas, right?

I disagree.  Before eighth grade I didn't have a clear understanding the freedoms that our Constitution promised us.  Then I sat in Mr. Vogel's history class, and we basically had to memorize the entirety of the information in the Constitution so that, if a section of it were removed, we could pen in the missing words.  And plenty of spaces were blank on the test.

Was it a challenge to memorize what each bill said?  Absolutely.  But if my thirteen year old mind could handle it, and process what I was memorizing, I'm quite certain it's not beyond the reach of the average American to understand the freedoms that the framers of the Constitution recognized needed to be protected.

Those men, penning the laws that they fervently hoped would stand to protect our freedom, didn't have much patience for an overbearing federal government that levied taxes simply because it could.  They thought that they were throwing that heavy, nation crushing weight off their own shoulders, and creating a nation where men wouldn't be weighed down under that same burden.

They didn't impose a system where the federal government could decide that it "knew better" than the majority of it's citizens and didn't frame a system to allow that government to take steps to protect us from our own irresponsibility, as a parent protects a young child.

Maybe you live in a country with socialized medicine and you love it (I lived in a country with socialized medicine and I watched as a friend suffered with a life threatening malady that would have been likely dealt with in one doctor's appointment in our own nation... so I am considerably less impressed with what I saw...).  If you do, please remember that your love for your country's system does not mean that this law is legal in this country.  It quite simply isn't something that is given to the federal government here.

Not only is it not legal, but it's never even been supported by a majority of the citizens of our independence loving nation.

This law is being forced upon us, first by an administration and legislature and now by a court that believes that it knows better than it's citizens (that's dangerous with elections creeping ever nearer) and who have now committed themselves to playing the part of nanny to those citizens.

They are telling us:  You have to buy this and if you don't buy this we'll fine/tax you for not buying it (so that you are still essentially buying it).  This is not freedom and it's certainly not legal with our existing Constitution.  It is a massive expansion of federal power and it leaves me wondering what the government will force us to buy next.  This year it's insurance and contraception.  What will they next decide we must buy "for our own good"?  Even the dollars that we manage to eke out of this horrible economy, after taxes, are no longer our own.

One hope remains through all of this:  Perhaps I was naive to trust in the courts and the rule of the law while this administration holds the reins of power.  I still cling to the hope that the voters across this nation will remember this treachery to freedom in November, and vote out those who participated in enacting this blight upon our country.

Let's remind the "leaders" of this nation that we are adults who have a say in our own destinies, by making our voices heard from the ballot box this November.


  1. Here here. I'm so disgusted right now. I don't want to be overly dramatic, but this is the same as saying, "You won't have an abortion? Fine, pay this "tax." We don't think you can properly raise the "fetus."

  2. I was watching the news as it happened, and they first reported that it had been struck down. *cue much rejoicing in our house*. Then they said nope, we were wrong.

    I am horrified. However, this may just be the tipping point needed in some of the swing states to get Obama out of office. At least, I hope so. Otherwise I'm very concerned for the future of our country.

    And as for what we buy next? I'd bet forced "donations" to charities the government approves of. Apparently they can do anything if they say it's a tax.

  3. It's a sad sad day for Americans!

  4. I am starting to seriously consider moving out of the country. Only problem is that there aren't any places I think I would be willing to move to. Our entire world has lost it's mind and is bowing to Atheistic Marxism.

  5. Oh dear. All right, I know my appearances around here tend to be a bit like throwing rocks at a hornet's nest, but hey, I don't have a mother who yells at me when I'm wrong anymore, so let's give it another shot. :)

    With the caveat that I'm not nearly as familiar with your constitution as with our own up here in the Soviet Republic of Canuckistan (home of the Atheist Marxists), I find I disagree with the notion that socialized medicine (or indeed, socialism) is anti-Christian. Granted, it stands opposed to the prototypical American Dream, but it's about as Christian as it gets. Supporting each other, the rich giving their aid to the poor... starting to sound a little Christ-Like.

    Given the choice between having had to deal with my facial burns here or in the states, I'll take the first-rate treatment I received here rather than the top-dollar treatment I'd have received there. And I have health insurance.

  6. Zach-

    You might want to read up on subsidiarity. This link sums it up wonderfully:

    An overreaching government controlling every aspect of our lives isn't the answer. They're already over stepping and encroaching on the free practice of our religion. I can't imagine that this over reach of power won't be abused in a similar way.

  7. Zach-

    You might want to read up on subsidiarity. This link sums it up wonderfully:

    An overreaching government controlling every aspect of our lives isn't the answer. They're already over stepping and encroaching on the free practice of our religion. I can't imagine that this over reach of power won't be abused in a similar way.

  8. No. Subsidiarity aside, we can't say that one moral issue is too small to be a federal issue and another (i.e. Homosexuality, Abortion, etc) requires immediate congressional action.

    Having said that, it's an interesting idea, at the heart of federalism. Mandates, whether they come from the church or the state, seem to take the charity out of, well, charity.

  9. I'd have to disagree Zach, and I think you probably would too if you knew a bit more about our Constitution. You see, there are certain areas that are given to federal regulation. Everything else is given to the states. That's how our legal system is framed.

    I would agree that so called gay marriage is a state issue. I don't see where it's given to the federal government to regulate (and whenever it's given to the states to decide through popular vote the response is definite).

    I would disagree that abortion is a state issue, since it violates the basic right to life named in the first amendment.

    And let's remember that not all evils are created equal. Being killed is far more serious than being robbed.

    The Church was given it's mandate to govern us from God. Without her guidance we would be ships without rudders, meandering aimlessly and likely to end up on the rocks.

    Governments are given authority, and as the Bible states, authority is given by God. In this case the ultimate law of the United States, is the Constitution. It is the ultimate authority by which Americans are governed. As I stated the problem I have with this law is that it violates the constitution, quite clearly and gives the federal government powers not given to it in the constitution (and that is why I did frame this entire post as a constitutional problem because I think that is where it can be most strongly argued in our nation).

  10. I wonder if a lot of people aren't going to choose to pay a fine rather than buy health insurance that is too expensive for them. And then what coverage, if any, will they have?

  11. Yes, the federal government does not actually have too many powers. The framers wanted it that way because they were escaping countries where the "feds" had way too much power.

  12. Cam,

    Believe me, I'm on your side of this issue. :) The nerd in me, however, requires that I ask...

    ...where in the First Amendment is a right to life mentioned?

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

  13. Your right Katherine. My mind is apparently so jumbled with all the various things I've been thinking about today, that I mis-reasoned on that one (apparently because the declaration of independence has been bouncing, not inappropriately, around in my head today).

    So I guess, Zach, to answer the question of why abortion is currently a national issue, as far as I can tell it would simply be because Roe vs. Wade went to the Supreme Court and that right was stripped away from the states. I'd be totally okay with reversing Roe vs. Wade and letting the states decide the issue again. Polls show that in increasingly overwhelming majorities, most Americans don't support abortion at all...

  14. I think too, there's just a difference in how our respective countries handle these issues. I seem to remember there being a row about creating our medicare (which I understand means something slightly different in the states?) system federally, because it was immediately handed off to the provinces to administer. We get around that little confusion with something called the equalization payments... something to keep all this from being one big unfunded mandate.

    At least you guys have abortion laws. We're gearing up to get rid of our euthanasia laws. Abortion laws haven't even crossed the voters' minds yet.

    The upcoming elections are going to be interesting for me. By the way, has your party chosen a nominee yet?

  15. A friend of my mother's died in England of something that would have been taken care of with antibiotics in one office visit here in the States. I don't want English style medicine.

  16. My understanding is that low-income folks who don't have and can't get insurance would *not* be fined. And I believe Medicaid coverage would be expanded?

    There are aspects of Obamacare that I do like (especially the part about insurance companies not being allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions). Anything that gets more people health care is okay by me, but I don't entirely love how it's being implemented.

    Though I did see a link on Buzzfeed about people threatening to move to Canada over the ruling on Obamacare...that has me confused!

  17. For those who seem to insist that all socialised medicine is the same... really? Think about it for a second. A lot of countries have socialised medicine. There are different ways of handling it. I, for one, am very glad to live in a country with socialised medicine. I got very sick a few years ago and if I had been living in the US I would have either received no treatment or had huge out of pockets no normal person could afford. My treatment took 3 years - for most people it takes 10. I'd have died before then.

    Don't judge all socialised medicine the same.

    (Yes, I know this post isn't about bagging socialised medicine Cam, but someone always comes up with a "I know someone who was worse off under socialised medicine" statement. Just highlighting that it works both ways).

  18. Clarification on my previous post. My illness takes 10 years of treatment in the US (for total remission), although of course not everyone achieves that. I haven't seen stats for other countries - I haven't looked I just know from experience that's concerned extreme here. Here been Australia.


I love comments and I read every single comment that comes in (and I try to respond when the little ones aren't distracting me to the point that it's impossible!). Please show kindness to each other and our family in the comment box. After all, we're all real people on the other side of the screen!