Constitutional Authority?
In calls to the Washington offices of senators Lincoln, Pryor and representative Snyder, I asked, in each instance, where they found any authority in the Constitution for even being concerned, politically speaking, about the citizens’ health care, let alone getting the government involved in paying for it. The young man in Lincoln’s office explained that she represents the people so she needs to do what they want. I asked him if he believes the Constitution is to be our only guide and he said he does. I pointed out that he was contradicting himself and that the Constitution has nothing to say about getting involved in anything pertaining to our personal affairs. I said, “How old are you, if I may ask?” He said 23. I told him he was too young to personally know what had happened through the years. I asked him if he wanted the government to tell him what he could or couldn’t do about his health care or any other personal affairs. He agreed he didn’t. We talked 15 or 20 minutes and he said it was the most interesting conversation he’d had all day.
My next call was to Senator Pryor’s office and had a similar conversation with the girl there. She does not understand the principles involved in national health care or any other government involvement in private citizens’ affairs, either.
In all three calls I asked if he or she would explain my question to the official and request that a personal letter be sent to me with the answer. Each one agreed to do that, so we’ll see what happens. I have my doubts that it will happen.
The young man in Vic Snyder’s office gave the following explanation. He said the Constitution says the government is to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.” True enough! But, he went on to explain that the Supreme Court had determined the word “promote” could mean “provide.” (Incidentally, some months ago, a young woman in his office said the words mean the same.) When I questioned that, he said I could ask any attorney. I told him I didn’t need to do that. The “Court” had made no such decision. If they had, they would have been sorely rebuked! I remarked that the two words do not mean the same; they are not even synonyms. If they mean the same, why did the framers use two different words? Why didn’t they simply write, “provide for the common defense and the general welfare?” Furthermore, if they mean the same, why couldn’t the two words have been reversed?
He went on to make the liberals’ uniform arguments of instances in which families either had no health insurance or it was too insufficient to fully meet the needs, so the government ought to help them. That is an emotional argument, rather than rational, based upon the Constitution. I asked him if he had a college education to prepare himself to be productive and care for himself.. He does. I further asked him if he liked for the government to take money from him to give to those who had not prepared themselves. He skirted around my question, replying that we all pay taxes. I asked him specifically, how he felt about teen girls, who become pregnant, by other teens, who have no financial capabilities, so they abandon them, leaving them to the mercy of society in general. Does that bother him to have some of his tax money used to cover other people’s irresponsibilities? He said the government has set a certain poverty level. My reply was, “Where does the Constitution give any authority for that?” It was clear that he is a very mixed up man, ill equipped for rational thought, but he is in a representative’s office, presuming to speak on his behalf. This is not surprising, seeing that President Obama campaigned with this view and a very high percentage of others in the government espouse it. One of our largest expenditures is in support of this concept. It is self-destructive, compounding lethargy, laziness and slothfulness. We see this in abundance in the public schools every day! It is weighing heavily on our nation!
Where is the Constitutional authority for the government to take over private enterprises, establish competitive enterprises, tell insurance companies whom they have to insure, regardless of their risk factors, for the same premiums and force younger people to buy insurance or be fined? All these things are not just unConstitutional, they are anti-Constitutional!
The government has no right to be involved in any citizen’s personal affairs at all! Period!
I finally asked the young man in Mr. Snyder’s office if he would make my question known to him, along with my request for a personal explanation to me. I am not speaking for anyone else, but I suspect most of you, if not all, are like-minded. Whether or not I get a reply from one or all three, I will make a report in an essay. To a large extent, I believe we have already lost control of our nation. It is imperative for us to become assertive in our efforts to recover it. Mary Lou and I are extremely concerned about our family and yours as well. –Lowell E. McCoy
Posted in Lowell E. McCoy