I know, I know, the election is over; and to paraphrase something I read on Facebook™ ”The election is over, the talking is done. My party lost, your party won. So let us be friends, let arguments pass. I’ll hug my elephant, you kiss your a****! Most people are trying to do the ‘lets be friends’ part; not the ‘you kiss you a****’ part. There are a few folks who still feel that it is their duty to convince the ‘other’ guy that he was so wrong to vote the way he did, even though the election was nearly 2 weeks ago. Americans should stop talking about politics and affairs of state, right? Wrong.
Because all Americans know that our finances, jobs, debt and economy and anything remotely tied to these things, are headed for the proverbial terlit (and some say it is already there), it is up to Americans to decide what role the government has, if any, in solving these problems. Part of the problem was caused by too much government involvement, and part of the problem was caused by too little government involvement in operations of this country. After all, if government is PART of the problem, asking/demanding/allowing that SAME GOVERNMENT be part of the SOLUTION; seems to me a bit like allowing the government to be judge, jury and executioner at its own trial. This is hardly an impartial way to solve a problem. Don’t you think it is the role of the GOVERNED/WE THE PEOPLE to determine what the role of government is in finding a solution?
Another thing that the American people ought to be doing (and not just because I say so), is deciding if they want to return to strict interpretation of our founding documents, do they want to mold them into their lifestyle now (after all the documents have withstood the test of 230+ years for a reason).
The following article appears long and in some ways is a bit over-the-top for me, but when read with an open mind, there are some solid truths to it. As tempted as we may be to spend the next 4 years squabbling, let spend the next 4 years TALKING and finding solutions so that the next generation and enjoying life.
Several months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments about the Constitutionality of The Patient Protective and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as ‘Obamacare.’ What is being argued? What is the basis for the arguments on each side? How will the Supreme Court rule?
Opponents of the law say that it is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. However, opponents of the individual mandate state that the power given to Congress is the power to regulate commerce BETWEEN the states, not INSIDE state borders.
Other challenges are:
The healthcare law with its individual mandate is in violation of contract law, because individuals are coerced into purchasing insurance; ‘you must do this-or face a penalty.’
The individual mandate cannot be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent.
Opponents also feel that the individual mandate extends the powers of the federal governments far beyond what the Founders would ever have dreamed of and point out that if this bill is declared Constitutional, there would be no limit to the power of Congress.
The video below is long, but telling, for the truly interested.
But, proponents of the law say that the individual mandate IS Constitutional because of the EXISTENCE of the Commerce Clause.
Also, they cite that on several occasions, after the signing of the Constitution, that there are several instances in which the framers or Founders of our Constitution required that insurance be purchased or provided by an employer:
On one occasion they required that a ship owner buy health insurance for its seamen. Then 8 years later, the Congress required that employers provide drugs coverage with this healthcare insurance. These separate bills were signed by George Washington and other framers. Also, it is argued that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.
So, is the bill Constitutional or Unconstitutional?
After watching this video, I thought the time might be right to start an earnest dialog about what form of government we the people want and why; You know, the people in Washington aren’t exactly doing a bang-up job representing us, so we need to represent ourselves. If representing ourselves is what is ‘coming down’ we should have an idea of what we’re representing.
After all, we can’t proceed to solve our problems, until the majority of us are on the same page as to how much or how little we want government to be involved in our lives and solving our problems. Do we want a government deeply imbedded in our lives or a government which sits on the sidelines and has minimal input, determining laws, collecting taxes and powers set forth only by the Constitution?
The choice of either way (large, controlling government vs, smaller, allowing you and me to control our destiny) will mean a change in life as we know it. I think you know where I stand from having read this blog; but I’d really like to hear what you have to think and why you think it. Remember, everybody’s opinion is valid-at least here!