Health Care Legislation Weakens the Constitution

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-Thomas Jefferson

The current health-care debate has reached a fevered pitch across our nation, with defenders on both sides of the issue offering their learned opinions. In the Part I of this blog, I will examine what the U.S. Constitution has to say about the proposed approaches from our legislature. In Part II, which I will post in the next few days, I will use facts, history and logic to expose the deception and hypocrisy foisted upon us by our government's attempt to “reform” health care. I will also offer some concrete suggestions to address the issue of spiraling health-care costs and offer free-market alternatives to ensure access to those unable to afford insurance.

With regard to the Constitution, let's look at Section 8: The Powers of Congress, as a starting point. This sections reads as:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Let's be clear about this. The framers of the Constitution undoubtedly wanted the federal government to have access to money through the imposition taxes; this is beyond dispute and was upheld by the Federalist papers, the document created by the Founding Fathers that provides both justification for and elaboration of, the Constitution. However, the proposition underlying this ability to tax has to take into account the historical context. The fledgling United States was a fragile union, beset by powerful real and potential enemies. The need to raise and maintain a vigilant and effective military was the most pressing issue. As Alexander Hamilton stated: “The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.” (Federalist 23) And although the Federalist papers defend this power to tax, the catch is in the last part of Section 8: "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This means that the taxation should not favor one portion of society at the expense of the other. The new health-care legislation, regardless of the house it emanates from, violates both the letter and spirit of this clause. By taxing the wealthy to supply for those less fortunate, you are playing favoritism, which ultimately compromises the integrity of the republic because it buys representatives votes from the public, leading to the entrenched political power structures. As Hamilton noted:

"BEFORE we proceed to examine any other objections to an indefinite power of taxation in the Union, I shall make one general remark; which is, that if the jurisdiction of the national government, in the article of revenue, should be restricted to particular objects, it would naturally occasion an undue proportion of the public burdens to fall upon those objects. Two evils would spring from this source: the oppression of particular branches of industry; and an unequal distribution of the taxes, as well among the several States as among the citizens of the same State.” (Federalist 23) And to those who invoke the “general welfare” phrase as evidence of the some inherent right of the government to dictatorially collect taxes at will, consider the words of James Madison, who is considered to be the “father” of the Constitution: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Madison also wrote, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

The health care legislation perpetrates these “evils” in several forms: it punishes small business by imposing fees should they not provide health insurance for their employees, whether or not they can afford it; it selectively singles out and penalizes, through the use of fines, insurance companies that do not comply with regulations; it imposes this taxation unequally on the wealthy, and it willfully perverts the intention and the nature of the Constitution. How much longer should we, as a free people, allow the government to violate the Constitution and impose their will upon us in a manner inconsistent with liberty and the principles our national and political identity was founded on?

Why The Constitution is Important

I created this website to educate both myself, as well as others, about the importance, necessity, and validity of the United States Constitution, as well as what the Constitution means, or should mean, to an average U.S. citizen. I say "should" because there has been a steady undermining of the clauses, provisions, and restrictions set forth in the Constitution, which has led to an ever-growing power grab by the federal government, expanding both it's size and scope. There are many people who claim the Constitution is a "living" document. They are correct. The framers of the Constitution intentionally built in a very constructive system of creating and ratifying amendments that require great effort to change the law of the land, and rightly so. The very fact that it takes 2/3 of each house of congress to change the Constitution is testimony to the foresight of the Founding Fathers, for they knew anything administered in a reactive or capricious manner had ruinous ends. This is based on great measure of living with tyranny and despotic governments. It was  created to endure time and all attempts to usurp its protections in perpetuity. This idea of stability of intent is essential to not only the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution, but its preservation. As James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution explained: " I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than faithful exercise in its powers."(James Madison, "Letter to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824.") In other words, if we do not have a constant by which we gauge our liberty, we will eventually fall prey to to the perturbations, trends, and irrational reactions of society. And because the Constitution is document primarily of restriction of government authority, any ill-conceived notion of change, be it noble or dubious in intent, will lead to an expansion of absolute governmental power, and absolute power leads to absolute corruption. To understand this concept, we turn to Newton's third law of physics, which states that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. This means that if we grow governmental power, we necessary shrink individual liberty, or the third law of physics, and its constancy, cease to exist. So, if the Constitution is a constant that protects our freedoms, it must remain constant or we are all in real peril.Of course, I realize the Constitution has been amended, or changed, many times, which some would point to as proof that the Constitution is inherently flawed. Yet, a closer examination of this ideas yields a different conclusion, because the vast majority of the amendments are clauses that restrict governmental power. Therefore, any attempt to change the Constitution must take this into account. In other words, if we endeavor to fundamentally change the law of the land, we should always do so to ensure future individual freedom. Think about it this way: If the Constitution is nothing more than a collection of the musings and ramblings of "dead white men," and its constancy is subject to the whims of political diatribe and hidden agendas, then we are all lost at sea, because our rudder has been removed. Moreover, if we have no constancy to check the powers of those who rule, are we really saying they are capable of checking themselves? As the Roman poet Juvenal asked: Quis custodiet ipos custodes? "Who is guarding the guardians?" In future post, we explore the contents and meaning of the Constitution. I welcome all rational, informed, and intelligent dialogue. Keep peace at your center at all times. This is the one constant beyond the Constitution we cannot lose.