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.

Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 4

4.  I Bet You A Trillion Dollars I Can Spend More Money Than You

At one time, it seemed there were at least a few politicians who took balancing the federal budget seriously. Today, those type of people would be laughed out of DC. “You believe WHAT?” To be fair, much of the problem stems from the citizenry. People want way too much from their government and aren’t willing to pay for it. We want low taxes and high spending. Hey, I want that too, but you know what, IT WON’T WORK! And because we want so much for so little, oftentimes the candidate that gets elected is the one that promises to provide the most. Basically, we have become a nation of debtors, living beyond our means in so many ways.

Think about it. What does it mean for our country to be nearly $20 trillion in debt? Well, at its base level, it means that our country has bought $20 trillion of stuff that we couldn’t afford.

In 2015, our federal government took in about $3.3 trillion in revenue; the highest amount in history. This would be like a person who makes $33,000 a year owing the bank $200,000. You might say, “There are plenty of people like that given many people have mortgages, car loans, and credit card debt.” Yes, but hold your horses, partner. Most people take out these loans and then start paying them back out of their income stream without borrowing any more. But not the federal government. In 2015, they borrowed $440 billion to make up for their shortfall. That would be like our theoretical person who earns $33,000 and owes $200,000 borrowing another $4,400. And then continuing to borrow that much year after year.

But wait, you say. The federal deficit is coming down. Eventually it will be zero and maybe go into a surplus. THEN, we can start paying off that debt. To that I say in a gravelly Steven Tyler voice, “Dream on.” When has THAT ever happened? Well, actually it did happen to a small extent back at the end of the Bill Clinton presidency and the beginning of the George W. Bush presidency. We actually ran a modest surplus for four years. But the problem is that when politicians get a whiff of extra money, a spending zeitgeist kicks in and they start adding new programs or spending more on existing ones rather than paying down the debt. Then suddenly, to everyone’s seeming surprise, all that extra money is gone and they have to start borrowing again. It seems to be a never-ending cycle. A deficit reincarnation scheme. Each time our leaders are naughty, they are reincarnated as even naughtier leaders. Given this scenario, our nation will never reach debt-free Nirvana.

To see the problem, all you have to do is listen to a typical politician’s speech. It will go something like this: “Yes, we need to reduce the nation’s debt. (blah, blah, blah) We need to have free college for students. We need to have free healthcare for all. We need to have the most powerful military in the world. And so on, and so on, and so on, almost ad infinitum.

Occasionally, some spaced-out reporter will actually challenge these politicians by asking how they will pay for all those programs while at the same time paying down the debt. And the answer is almost always, “Well, under my leadership, the nation’s economy will grow by leaps and bounds, increasing the tax base, thus bringing in more revenue. Why, we’ll have so much money flowing into the federal treasury, we won’t know what to do with it.” Uh, we all know that’s a lie. Politicians ALWAYS know what to do with extra money.

If asked whether it’s a good idea for the federal government to get involved in all those new programs, the answers will be something like this:

“The American people deserve it.”

“It is every American’s right.”

“We can’t afford NOT to pay for those things.”

"We're the richest nation on Earth. Why not?"

“We’ll save so much money having the government manage this program rather than the private sector, it’ll pay for itself.”

To all of those statements I respond with that famous double positive that means a negative, “Yeah, right!”

Folks, nothing is going to change until “We The People” begin to realize that we can no longer live beyond our means and start voting for fiscally conservative politicians. Otherwise, bye-bye country.

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.