Sunday, March 28, 2010

Letter t Washington Post on Obamascare conniving

Chicago Sunday PM 28 March 2010

Editors, Washington Post


The Washington Post article “... poll finds split on health-care law remains deep” of Sunday, March 28 says “more than a quarter of Americans seeing neither side as making a good-faith effort to cooperate” on the health-care issue.

Could this lack of cooperation have anything to do with the fact that of all the 7541 words of the US Constitution (including all 27 amendments,) not one of them is 'health'? The word 'care' does occur once, in the phrase “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

Of course there is the 'General Welfare' clause in Article I section 8. A quick read of Federalist Paper Number 41 finds the father of the Constitution himself, James Madison explaining that “a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms [general welfare] immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon.” And sure enough, following that semicolon is a list of 17 specific things Congress is limited to doing, and not a sign of anything to do with health.

So if even the simplest reading of the Constitution shows that ObamaCare violates it, does not the same reading show that Medicare, and even Social Security also violate it, leading to the question, why even have a constitution?

Your article also notes that “Republican leaders have called for repeal of the new law and replacement with more modest changes.” If the Democrats say forget the Constitution, now we have the Republicans say they have a plan that's unconstitutional too, but not quite as unconstitutional as the Democrats.

Our Constitution has given the longest period of peace and prosperity of any civilization in history. Do we really want to replace it with a government that through thotless deficit spending lowers everyone (except for a small number of czars running everything) to a common subsistence level?

Arnoild H Nelson

No comments: