Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 6

6.  Your Proposals Are Un-Constitutional, Let’s Not Talk About Mine

Some years back, when John Edwards was running for President, I saw him on a late night talk show. The host asked him what he thought about a recent action President Bush had taken. Edwards said that Bush was wrong. The host asked why. Edwards responded with something like this, “Well, you see, there’s this little thing called the Constitution.” In other words, Edwards believed that Bush was violating the Constitution with his actions. Later the host asked Edwards about healthcare. Edwards began espousing his solution to healthcare availability and cost. It involved a lot of intervention by the federal government. All of it was clearly un-Constitutional given that the Constitution nowhere grants the federal government the power to set policy for the healthcare industry. Yet, he clearly did not see the irony in his words.

Edwards’ two-faced view of the Constitution is not unique to him. I have heard many politicians do the same thing. It seems that today the Constitution is no longer the document it was intended to be. Originally, the Constitution was to be an overarching law describing how the government was to be structured and selected as well a list of powers the citizens would allow the government to have.

For years now the Constitution has become a political bludgeon. It is only used by Politician A to beat Politician B over the head when the latter is attempting to do something the former dislikes. And just like with a real bludgeon, it is never used on one’s own head.

Also, for some people, the Constitution is subservient to the law. I have actually heard it said that some provision of the Constitution was null and void because the law forbids it. Sorry folks, that’s not how it works. The Constitution is the law of laws. It comes first. Any laws enacted by Congress MUST be in accord with the Constitution or the Supreme Court is supposed to strike them down.

Come on people, now. Smile on the Constitution. It is our friend. Without it our federal government could run roughshod over our country. Minorities would have no protection from majorities. This being the case, why do so many people want to do an end-run around the Constitution? Well, I believe it is because the Constitution, like every other document written by humans, is not perfect. As people discover the problems with these imperfections, they want to do something about them. But here’s the kicker. The Constitution itself has provisions in it on how it can be modified. It’s done through the amendment process. Granted, it is not an easy process. But, we wouldn’t want it to be easy lest it be modified so much as to make it unreadable.

Politicians, however, like to expedite matters. So, they like to simply violate Constitutional law and then hope the Supreme Court can be convinced that they have not. In fact, oftentimes the President will select Supreme Court justices that are favorable to his or her particular un-Constitutional actions and are willing to adjudicate in such a way.

We really need to start electing leaders that want to be obedient to the Constitution and are only willing to modify it legally rather than subvert it via law and the Supreme Court. If we ever stretch our Constitution to a breaking point, we will find ourselves on the road to serfdom.

Luke, I Am Your Founding Father (Liberty and Healthcare)

The founding fathers of the United States were an amazing group of people. Many of them were wealthy, yet were willing to lay all on the line to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the British crown. (In many ways they are like Luke, Han, Leia, and others trying to rid themselves of the empire.) As they said in the Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

These men had a love of liberty and a deep distrust of government. This distrust came about from personal experience. But they still understood that some level of government was necessary in order to insure freedom. Without a proper level of government oversight, society would descend into chaos and anarchy. They believed there had to be an ultimate authority to protect the country as a whole, create law, try and punish criminals, and act as a final arbiter for settling disputes.

The founders did three major things in an attempt to prevent government from growing too powerful. First, they set in place the idea that the country ultimately belonged to all citizens and that the government only operated at their behest. They backed up this idea by creating a Constitution starting with the words "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles following these words describe and delimit the powers of the Federal Government.

Second, still being distrustful, they created the Bill of Rights to further define the rights of individuals that could not be taken away by government. The Bill of Rights preamble says, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." And to put a stop to the notion that somehow all of the rights of man had been thought of and included in the Bill of Rights, they said this in the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Third, they left it for the states and the people themselves to handle any issues that the Federal Government was not authorized to handle. This was stated clearly in the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

All of these safeguards took foresight. But, after all, it was Thomas Jefferson himself that said in 1788, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." Yet, the Constitution served the citizens well for many years. But somewhere along the line the politicians came to understand the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." In other words, until the day Congress discovers that it can take money away from its citizens by force and then buy their votes by offering some of that money back to them in the form of giveaways and programs.

Today, de Tocqueville's words line the walls of Congress. Not as a reminder of the impending loss of our Republic, but as a reminder of how to get reelected. For many years now, Congress has violated its trust with the public by taking the public's money via taxes, levies, fees, or whatever, and giving it back to certain people in order to assure their votes. This is what I call the politicization of America. But this has happened with the approval of the White House, the Supreme Court, and the citizens themselves in direct opposition to the Constitution. Why? Because we citizens as a whole have bought into the politicians' bribes.

Today, the elephant in the room is national healthcare. It is presently being implemented in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This is better know as ObamaCare. Bear in mind that PPACA is not a government run healthcare system. It is rather a mandated healthcare system. Private insurers still sell the insurance, but with certain mandates associated with it. Yet, it is still a government controlled healthcare system. So, why be concerned? Two reasons. One is philosophical, the other practical.

Philosophically, we should be concerned with the government controlling anything that is not permitted under the Constitution because that means we the citizens did not authorize it. But didn't the Supreme Court rule that PPACA was Constitutional? Indeed they did. But, I believe they did so using tortured logic, just as they have done with many other government programs over the years. There is no clause in the Constitution or its Amendments that authorizes the Federal Government to be involved in healthcare in any way. The only way you can get that out of it is to greatly stretch the meaning of other clauses. Three commonly stretched clauses are the "general welfare", "regulate commerce", and "lay and collect taxes" clauses. But it seems clear to me that if those clauses can be stretched as far as they have, then there is essentially no need for the Constitution. Just let Congress do what they want. But, as you may have observed, politicians still like having that ole Constitution around. They like to use it to hammer opponents wanting something opposed to it and conveniently ignore it when they want something opposed to it.

Practically, I am skeptical of the long term success of the PPACA. Why? Because of how other government controlled systems have fared over the years. Look at Social Security and Medicare. Both are on the brink of failure. Why? Because, as usual, politicians have overpromised, expanding these programs in order to get elected. In other words, the programs have become politicized. Social Security was put into place at a time when most people didn't even live to see any money out of the system. Yet, even as lifespans increased and the number of children being born decreased, more benefits were added to the Social Security program. Medicare suffers from something similar. As people live longer and new technology keeps adding more medical costs to an aging person's life, fewer children are coming along to pay for it.

So, unless some radical changes are made to SS and Medicare, they will become unsustainable in a few years. Yet, the politicians keep talking about how successful these programs have been. Well, yes, perhaps for a while. But the politicians' meddling and unwillingness to change these systems in crisis will ultimately lead to their failure. What makes us think that the government will handle national healthcare any differently, whether it be government run or just government controlled?

On the other hand, perhaps there is no reason for concern. If we can just jury rig all these government programs so they last until after we die, who cares? We can benefit from these programs during our life and let our children worry about the fallout. Yeah, that's the ticket. Stick it to the younger generation! Well, that's tempting, but I don't roll that way. I believe that each generation should live within its own means and pass on a country that is better than the one it inherited. Call me old fashioned, but that's me.

So, based on the wisdom of the founding fathers and my knowledge of history and how governments operate, I believe that, over the long haul, liberty and charity work much better than all inclusive government programs.

The Fundamental Question: Who Owns You?

When it comes to how people should interact with each other and with their government, there is a wide array of opinions. Some are liberal, some conservative, some libertarian. Some are statists and some individualists. Some are socialists; others capitalists. On listening to all these different viewpoints, it can get extremely confusing. There are good points to be made all around. I know that I personally find myself wavering as I hear the arguments coming from the various camps. Yet, through all that confusion, I keep coming back to one fundamental question that is foundational in choosing one's political persuasion.

WHO OWNS YOU?

Have you ever thought about this question? If so, have you ever settled on a definitive answer? I have asked this question of a number of people. Some of the religious folk answer, "God." Okay, that's fine, but I'm actually talking about ownership as it relates only to humans. With this criterion, most people would probably answer, "Me, of course." Yes, indeed. You own you, and I own me. It seems quite obvious to most people. Yet, most people do not fully understand the deep meaning of this answer and how it should play into their understanding of their place in the world and their relationship with others.

Throughout all of history, even into the present day, there have been places on this Earth where slavery existed. Yet, I believe that most people today would readily admit that slavery is wrong, even immoral. Why? Because we tend to believe that each man is an individual worthy of living his own life. I too believe this. Yet, in so many ways, people fail to understand how this belief should play out when living in a civil society.

Let us suppose that after the civil war Section 1 of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution was written to say:

"Slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States shall not exceed 40% of a person's productive life."

rather than:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

In other words, a person could own up to 40% of another person, but no more. The remaining 60% of a person's life would be his own. How does this settle with you? Nonsense, you say? Yes, well, I agree. No one should be allowed to own even a small percentage of another person. One's life is his own. If he wants to choose to work for another man, that's his prerogative. But no man should be able to force another to work for him even a short time, let alone 40% or 100% of his time.

Of course, even though slavery ended in 1865, many laws remained on the book for 100 years that allowed whites to treat blacks as second class citizens, thus, at least in part, permitting whites to have partial ownership of blacks. Yet, even this level was considered heinous and unworthy of an enlightened nation. It took a civil rights movement to get things changed.

Another egregious form of slavery that remained in effect after the civil war was conscription. After all, how is forcing someone to serve in the military not involuntary servitude? Yet, mandatory drafts were used as "needed" until they were abolished in 1973. It was then that the US went to a voluntary military. I know that there are differing opinions about mandatory drafts across the entire spectrum of American life. Many people argue that a mandatory draft is absolutely necessary when our country is under attack and we are in need of protecting our freedom. But, how does one justify taking away some citizen's freedom by involuntarily conscripting them into the armed forces in the name of protecting freedom?

But there is a more subtle form of slavery that occurs in our society that many people simply ignore: taxation. Yes, taxation. How is this slavery? Well, think about it. If the 13th amendment had read, as I stated above, that citizens could be enslaved up to 40% of their time, we would consider this immoral. Yet, isn't having 40% of the fruits of your labor taken from you essentially the same as enslaving you 40% of your productive time?

Okay, some of you are probably saying, "But that's different. Slavery entails one person owning another. Taxation comes from a government elected by the people." Fair enough. So, how many people have to come together to enslave you such that it will be okay? The people on your block? The whole neighborhood? Your entire city? The state? The whole nation? At what point along this continuum does enslaving you go from being immoral to moral? Let's suppose the 13th amendment had been written this way:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except at the behest of the duly elected officials of the federal government or as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Is this wording satisfying to you? Would you be okay with the government being able to enslave you, even partially, as long as no individuals could? I kind of don't think you would. But taking your hard earned wages, in essence, is the same thing. To this you might counter, "But I am willing to pay a part of my income to the government to provide essential services and to help others less fortunate than me." Well, there would be nothing to prevent you from sending that money in voluntarily just like young men and women voluntarily join the military.

The founding fathers of the United States of America understood well the power that government could wield over its citizens and were understandably dubious of having one. Many of them, or their ancestors, came to the colonies to rid themselves of the tyranny of government in other parts of the world. Yes, unfortunately, slavery was encoded into the original Constitution, but that was mostly a compromise position in order to get the country started. It took an extremely bloody war to correct this problem. Yet, the founding fathers also understood that some level of government was essential to a nation's preservation since there needed to be an ultimate authority to settle disputes, provide law and order and justice, and to protect citizens from foreign invaders.

So, the founders decided that since a central authority was absolutely needed, they would create one. But a VERY limited one. A constitution was written clearly delineating the powers this government would be allowed to have. In other words, the government operates at the behest of the country's citizens rather than the citizens working at the behest of government. The number of people making up that central government was very small and could be supported by only a very small amount of taxes. Interestingly, the income tax didn't even exist.

However, as the founders feared, government began to grow. Slowly at first, but speeding ever faster as the present day arrived. Congress, with the help of the Supreme Court and the President, now have hundreds of thousands of pages of federal law that gives the federal government FAR more power than we citizens have permitted them to have via the Constitution. And as it grows, funding has to be continually increased to pay for it. Citizens gave the government the right to tax their income at a very low rate with a Constitutional amendment in 1913. Since then the rate has increased dramatically. Other taxes not approved by the Constitution have been authorized by our elected officials as well. Now, the amount of money needed by the government has grown to a point that even those taxes are not sufficient to fund it. Knowing the negative effect of increasing taxes even further, both electorally and economically, our nation now borrows about a TRILLION dollars each year. We are now almost 17 TRILLION dollars in the red.

The system as it exists is unsustainable. We citizens need to help our nation by once again asking ourselves that fundamental question, "Who Owns You?" Once we truly understand the ramifications of the answer, "I own me," and begin to enact it in the real world, we can begin to veer our country off its current path to destruction and hopefully make it once again the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a nation of prosperity.

And Now For a Totally Different Election Process

During this election cycle there has been quite a bit of talk about Voter ID laws. Some say these laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud where some people vote more than once. In some cases, people who are dead have apparently channeled their candidate selections to living people who are charged with being proxies at the voting booth. Soon we will be hearing about people who are not yet born horning in on the election process. In fact, if a significant number of this demographic begins voting, we may find Roe v. Wade being overturned.

On the other side are those who believe that Voter ID laws disenfranchise citizens who do not have a valid ID. However as one commentator said, you can’t even check out a book at the public library without sufficient ID. Why would you want to allow voting without proper identification? Perhaps those library cards could be used at the polls as identification. In fact, some states are already doing this.

Given all the controversy over Voter ID, I decided that if we really don’t care how many times a person votes, there is a much better way to hold elections. I call it Reality TV Elections (RTE). Currently, there is a huge interest in talent shows on TV. Shows such as American Idol, America’s Got Talent, The X Factor, The Voice, and Dancing With The Stars are going strong. Some of these shows have franchises around the world, so there’s no disenfranchising going on there yet. Here is my idea. Do away with the current election process and replace it with a reality show. Just to get the mental cogs turning, here’s a few suggestions for the name of the show: Presidential Idol, America’s President’s Got Skills, The POTUS Factor, The Election, or Cavorting With The Candidates. I’m sure you, gentle reader, can come up with even better names.

Just think about it. This reality show concept will not only solve the problem of voters being disenfranchised and others not being allowed to vote more than once, but other problems as well.

Campaign finance reform is something that many people want to see. They don’t like the idea of big money controlling big elections. All those PACs and SuperPACs are seen as corrupting the election process. Well, no more with RTE. The candidates will no longer have to raise money and be beholding to big money interests. In fact, RTE will pay for itself. Advertising fees would pay for the entire process. Can you imagine replacing the McCain-Feingold law with McCain’s Fine Gold ads? Totally awesome.

Our two-party system of politics has been increasingly under attack since there are a significant number of people who no longer like the candidates who run as a Republican or a Democrat. Yet these people are skeptical of voting for a third party candidate for fear they are throwing their vote away and possibly allowing the worser of two evils to get elected. This is not an issue with RTE. It would allow anyone in the country who is Constitutionally qualified to be president to show up at the tryouts to be held in major cities throughout the US. The judges would consist of all former US presidents who are still alive. Channeling of dead presidents is not allowed as it is with voters. If there is not a well balanced array of ideologies amongst the living presidents, then Howard Stern and/or Penn Jillette could join them to compensate. And remember, there would no longer be any political parties except those held by the judges after hours.

In the early rounds of competition, the judges alone would decide who makes it through to the next round.  However, to avoid any hint of partisanship in this process, the early rounds would be devoid of any ideological content. The judges could base their decisions on such things as who has a presidential look and speaks like a president. After all, you don’t want a president who wears a nose ring and dangles his participles. Well, at least not in our present culture; maybe someday in the future. After eliminating candidates based on these two criteria alone, the field of remaining candidates should be at a very manageable level. In fact, the number may be small enough to go to the live shows. If not, then the number could definitely be reduced to an appropriate level by asking questions such as “What are the three branches of the federal government?”, “Who was the first president of the United States?”, and “What was the first bill that President James Garfield signed into law?”

Voting by the TV viewing audience would begin with the first live show. At this point ideologies could be expressed by the candidates. I suggest that each of the live shows be themed. For instance, one show could be devoted to writing and delivering a speech. Each candidate would be put in solitary confinement for the day with a pencil and paper. No speech writers would be allowed. Also, no computer with an Internet connection would be allowed lest the candidates be tempted to plagiarize a Ronald Reagan speech. During the live show that evening, they would deliver their speeches. After the show, two hours of voting would begin. Everyone would be allowed to vote as many times as she is able to get through on the phone and the Internet. Don’t even say it. I know what you are thinking. Isn’t this method of voting disenfranchising those without a phone or a computer with an Internet connection? Well, it would be except that I hear that President Obama is personally passing out free cell phones to those without one. I assume this program will continue under future presidents. In fact, with voting at stake, it would be their patriotic duty.

Additional show themes could include such things as handling a simulated Cuban missile crisis, making wise decisions (bonus points for having this ability during the sleep deprivation episode), handling terrorist threats and attacks, and revealing which famous actors you would choose to fly into space with nuclear weapons to break up a comet fast approaching Earth. I would personally want to see one week devoted to the candidates imitating Elvis Presley. I believe every patriotic American citizen needs to possess this skill. The president gets no special exemption. However, this is the closest I ever want to see the US President pretending to be a King.

After several weeks of intense competition and voting, the winner of the presidential reality TV show would be revealed. Tell us what prizes the winner gets, Don Pardo. Well, they include an all expense paid trip to Washington DC, a free four-year stay at the White House, free trips to points around the world aboard Air Force One, free food for the entire family, and an annual $400,000 salary plus $169,000 for various expenses. And that’s not all. The winner will continue to get nearly $200,000 per year for life as a pension. Not bad considering he will also be eligible to make $100,000 or more for each appearance he makes on the speaking circuit. The actual amount will vary depending on how well he performed on speech delivery night during the competition.

So what do you all think of my idea? If you like it, we can make this reality show a reality by banding together and demanding a Constitutional amendment that modifies the election process. I can’t wait. After all, since it is my idea, my royalties for the show will probably exceed by far the measly amount made by the President. His will be chump change by comparison.

The Individual Mandate

Since the US Supreme Court’s recent hearing of the case against the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or ObamaCare), a number of liberal commentators have gotten into a tizzy over the possibility that the high court will declare the mandate un-Constitutional, thus dashing the hopes of millions who foresaw the possibility of finally obtaining healthcare that was not affordable to them before. They tell us how much ObamaCare is needed by the uninsured, and justify the mandate using the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution. To hear these commentators speak, you’d think that those conservative Supreme Court justices, as well as every citizen opposed to the individual mandate, were in a celebratory mood, salivating over the thought that they have a chance to deny much needed healthcare to those worthless dregs of society. Come on, give me a break! I dare say that only a handful of people feel that way. Many kind, decent, and caring people are opposed to ObamaCare and its individual mandate. Why? Because it’s un-Constitutional. And for some people, that still means something.

Surely we all know that when the Constitution was drafted, it was intended to limit the powers of the federal government. After all, these citizens had just been fighting a tyrannical English government. Why would they immediately turn around and create a new government with essentially unlimited power over their lives? Why would they fight a war only to jump from the frying pan into the fire?

The Commerce Clause, which says “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states rather than mandate commerce. The intent was to make sure voluntary commerce occurred unimpeded across state lines, thus insuring the country was a unified whole as it pertained to trade.

The General Welfare Clause was obviously not intended to give Congress the power to implement any legislation they deemed to be for the general welfare. That would go counter to the whole purpose of the Constitution, which was federal restraint. Thomas Jefferson said this: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” In other words, the Constitution spelled out the powers of the federal government that would provide for the general welfare. That being so, Congress was granted the power to tax its citizens to finance those activities, but no more.

So, don’t believe those who say that those in opposition to the individual mandate are evil, mean-spirited people who want to see uninsured people dying in the streets. Rather, we who are opposed believe it is ultimately in the best interest of our country to not have an unbridled federal government. Giving Congress the power to dictate purchases US citizens must make is a huge unbridling.

Since the beginning of our country, Congress and the President have un-Constitutionally grabbed more power from the states and its citizens, oftentimes with a nod of approval from the Supreme Court. And just look at the mess we are now in. Their track record for handling our tax dollars is nothing to write home about. Look at what they have done with the Social Security trust fund. It’s now a distrust fund. Total unfunded liabilities are estimated to be about $60 trillion. Our national debt is over $15 trillion and increasing by a trillion dollars every year. Do we really want to put ourselves in these hands when it comes to everyone’s healthcare? While it is true that current calculations show that ObamaCare will actually reduce future obligations, it is also true that past calculations for existing government programs have been horrendously wrong. And it’s also true that once a segment of our economy is taken over by politicians, it becomes highly politicized, with incumbents expanding the scope of various programs in order to gain votes to stay in office. In other words, the politicians like to use some of the taxpayers’ money to benefit themselves during their reelection bids.

So, what to do about the uninsured? One option is charity. Another is to eliminate unnecessary regulations on the healthcare market, thus putting downward pressure on costs. Yet another is for each state to implement their own healthcare plan to the extent that its State Constitution permits. Ultimately, if a sufficient number of the American people become convinced that the best option is to have our leaders in DC mandate a national healthcare plan, an amendment can be added to the US Constitution granting the federal government this power. After all, that’s why Article V is in the Constitution. But it seems that more and more our leaders want to skirt around that Article and pass laws without the permission of their employers, the American people. I believe they have skirted around it for too long. It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough!”

The Arrow of Freedom

As you have probably heard, the Supreme Court has been hearing the case brought against the individual mandate portion of Obamacare. At issue is whether or not the Commerce Clause of the Constitution combined with the power of the federal government to tax it citizens are sufficient to give the federal government the right to dictate to its citizens the mandatory purchase of health insurance. The thing that confounds me most about this case is that it had to be brought in the first place. The individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. It is quite obvious that the intent of the Constitution was to put restraints on the federal government so they could not get to the point of being oppressive like the governments the colonists had once been under. If indeed the Commerce Clause grants our national leaders the power to mandate private purchases, then in essence they have unlimited power. What will come next? Preventing people from purchasing fatty and sugary foods? Mandating that businesses must hire people until unemployment is zero? Preventing people from pooling their money in an attempt to oust an incumbent politician? Our country now stands at a very important juncture. If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is Constitutional, then basically our Constitution will have been ruled to be of no consequence. Congress and the President will be handed the keys to the nation. They will be able to open any door without resistance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, if indeed we want to remain a free people.

Historically, the courts in the United States have held that any contract that was signed under duress was invalid because the essence of a valid contract was that it was entered into on all sides voluntarily. If a person was coerced in any way, he could go to court, present his case, and have the contract invalidated. Now we have our very own government saying that that aspect of contract law is wrong. They are attempting to hold that they have the power to force a person to enter into a contract that he does not wish to enter. And the contract would be valid, regardless of the duress. What other contracts will our government force us into should this one be validated by the Supreme Court?

When this nation was founded, liberty was a great idea that was only enjoyed primarily by white males. Over time, as people became more enlightened, freedom began to expand. It took a civil war, rallies, writing, discourse, civil disobedience, and protests (sometimes violent), but over the years the arrow of freedom continued to move in the right direction. Blacks gained their freedom and eventually were able to overturn discriminatory laws. Women became full citizens with the right to vote and become leaders in industry and politics. More recently we see gay citizens standing up for their rights and gaining them little by little. We have seen a lot of progress in our country as its citizens of all stripes stand up for themselves and gain independence. Are we really willing to let our desire for safety reverse this progress? For if we give the federal government the power to run our lives in the marketplace, it won’t just be select groups of people who will see their freedom slip away. It will be everyone who calls himself a citizen.