Yesterday on September 10, 2013, the exempt America Rally
occurred. The purpose of this rally was
to encourage leaders in Congress to defund Obamacare as part of the continuing
resolution. Since I am writing this on
the 10th, I do not have any attendance figures but for everyone
attending the rally, there are hundreds, possibly even thousands, of who did
not attend because they either could not afford it or had to work but we are
there in spirit.
Today is also the anniversary of the attack on our nation 12
years ago. 12 years ago a group of
radical Islamists attacked our nation taking the right to life away from 3000
innocent Americans and attempted to steal the liberty of the rest of the
nation. Our President responded to these
radicals with force and their attempt to steal our liberty failed. However, since 1913, liberal progressives
have been incrementally doing what these radical Islamists could not do with
their terrorist attacks. For the
Republican Party to become strong once again, they need to become the party
dedicated to the restoration of the eroding liberties of the nation.
After winning independence from England, our founders began
the process of forming this nation.
Their greatest concern was that they place safeguards in place,
protecting the citizens from going from one tyrannical government to
another. This is why our Constitution
divides our government into three branches that each having the ability to
check and hold in balance the other branches.
Even though there is no specific declaration of this separation in the
Constitution, the Constitution implies it in the structure of the
government. The Constitution gives
legislative power to the bicameral Congress, executive power goes to the
President, and judicial power goes to the Supreme Court and the lower courts,
which Congress establishes through legislation.
(1)
The founders believed that the separation of powers prevented
the concentration of power, which they believed to be the root of tyranny. (1) However, after ratification of the
Constitution, amendments were offered to place limits on what the newly formed
Federal government could do. We now call
these amendments the Bill of Rights.
Federalists were initially against adding a bill of rights
to the constitution believing that it would imply that government had the
authority to restrict speech, the practice of religion etc. that could only be
stopped by the addition of a bill of rights.
However, Madison, once in opposition to a bill of rights changed his
mind. Part of the reason for his change
of mind was a belief that the people were ultimately responsible for protecting
their rights and viewed the addition of the first ten amendments to the
constitution as a way of informing the public of their rights. (2)
Perhaps Madison was correct though in his original thinking
that the addition of a bill of rights would make government think it had powers
not specifically prohibited in the Constitution or bill of rights. This was evident when Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia believed a law requiring everyone to carry a national ID card
was constitutional since it was not specifically prohibited in the Bill of
Rights. (3)
When we look at the language used in the Bill of Rights it
represents a list of things the government is prohibited from doing (i.e.
restricting speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, etc.) and does
not empower government in any way. (4) For Justice Scalia to imply that the absence
of specific language in the Bill of Rights prohibiting a national ID card as a
carte blanche for the government to require citizens to carry one is an example
of how liberal progressives read things into the Constitution that are not
there and in so doing, limit our liberties.
Unhappy with the limitations placed on the government by the
Bill of Rights, FDR proposed a second Bill of Rights. He proposed:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries
or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.(5)
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
This second Bill of Rights differs from the original Bill of
Rights in that it specifically spells out items FDR believed the government was
empowered and had a duty to provide for each citizen. Even though FDR did not live long enough to
implement his plan, liberal progressives have incrementally implemented much of
his plan.
If we could impeach a President for plagiarism, Obama could
be impeached over his use of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights in his 2013 State of
the Union Address. If FDR were alive
today and saw what our government is doing with Obamacare, he would no doubt
believe the government had finally developed a program to provide medical care
and good health for each citizen.
However, nothing is free and Obamacare comes at the cost of
many of our liberties. The Commerce
Clause of the Constitution affirms the right of the government to regulate
commerce but does not allow it to force citizens to partake in commerce. (6) By upholding the Individual Mandate, the Supreme
Court in essence empowered the government to require citizens to engage in
commerce (i.e. purchasing health insurance).
(7) What next, is the government going to tell us
what kind of car to drive, what to eat, or where to live.
In addition to the violation of individual liberties by
requiring citizens to purchase health insurance, the Supreme Court decision
also violates the right of citizens to freely practice their religion. This is because the law also requires
religious hospitals, charities, and schools to provide health insurance that
covers birth control and abortion inducing drugs, in violation of their
faiths. (8)
These attacks on individual liberty present a golden
opportunity for the Republican Party to become the party of liberty. Unfortunately, moderates in the party appear
to want bigger government as well with the only difference being in that they
want to grow the government at a slower pace.
To become strong once again, the Republican Party must dedicate itself
to the founder’s desire for a country dedicated to preserving individual
liberty. This means letting go of the
power of big government and empowering their constituents by shrinking the size
and scope of government its intrusion into the lives of citizens.
I believe this is a winning path for it empowers the
citizens of the nation to pursue their dreams and goals which are what built
this great nation.
1. UMKC. Separation of Powers. law2.umkc.edu.
[Online] [Cited: September 10, 2013.]
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm.
2. Ph.D, Joseph
Postell. Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of
Rights. www.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, December 14,
2007. [Cited: September 10, 2013.]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-and-importance-of-the-bill-of-rights.
3. OnPower.org.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights. www.onpower.org. [Online] [Cited:
September 10, 2013.] http://www.onpower.org/crises_constitution.html.
4. Hillsdale
College. The Constitution of the United States of America. [book auth.]
Hillsdale College. The U.S. Constitution: A Reader. Hillsdale MI :
Hillsdale College Press, 2012.
5. Roosevelt
Institute. FDR’s Second Bill of Rights: ‘Necessitous Men are not Free Men’.
www.rooseveltinstitute.org. [Online] Roosevelt Institute. [Cited:
September 10, 2013.]
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fdr-s-second-bill-rights-necessitous-men-are-not-free-men.
6. Szydlowdki,
Julie. Guest column: ObamaCare an attack on individual liberty. www.soourcenewspapers.com.
[Online] Advisor & Source Newspapers, April 3, 2012. [Cited: September
10, 2013.] http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2012/04/03/opinion/doc4f761b1a2f2fa560338313.txt.
7. Kenny, Jack.
Supreme Court Sidesteps Commerce Clause, Cites Tax Power, Says ObamaCare Is
Constitutional. www.thenewamerican.com. [Online] New American, June 28,
2012. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/11897-supreme-court-sidesteps-commerce-clause-cites-tax-power-says-obamacare-is-constitutional.
8. Addington, David
S. Blunt the Attacks on Religious Liberty: Repeal Obamacare. blog.heritage.org.
[Online] The Heritage Foundation, February 29, 2012. [Cited: September 10,
2013.]
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/29/blunt-the-attacks-on-religious-liberty-repeal-obamacare/.
No comments:
Post a Comment