Health By Bureaucracy

Just a quick one today.  I'm sure you've heard the news about the Federally appointed task force that decided that the current breast cancer screening procedures are too thorough sighting the high cost of each test and individual turmoil caused due to false positives (detecting breast cancer where there isn't any).  Thankfully the Obama Administration won't change their existing policy on this go-around... its like they have a critical bill moving through the Senate that is trying to give them control over what type of medical treatment is really necessary or something.


Seriously, though:  a government task force appointed to come up with the balance between cost, your own personal feelings, and your health?  Isn't this just like the government telling me what is healthy instead of me talking it over with my doctor?  I thought this was something only evil corporations were capable of: identifying what sort of treatments or preventative measures I need by a calculated cost-benefit analysis.  Why would you fight for something like this?


Here is my chance to poke a few more holes in the FDA, also.  Have you heard the story about the FDA looking to take action against highly caffeinated alcoholic beverages?  First off, who hasn't tried a Vodka with Red Bull - secondly, what is the point of making pre-mixed drinks illegal when the whole fashion was started with people mixing their own drinks?  If MillerCoors isn't allowed to sell their Sparks because it is dangerous, what is to keep people from mixing their own again?  Is the FDA going to go into a house party and arrest people for mixing drinks?  Which is really dangerous - the alcohol or the caffeine or both?  If everything is dangerous, let's just bring back prohibition and add caffeine to the list of banned substances!


It is impossible to implement enough laws to protect people from their own ignorance.  If it is dangerous to mix alcohol and caffeine, then education is the way to solve it (remember that party saying, "beer before liquor, never sicker - liquor before beer, in the clear").  It is the same with preventative health measures - these issues should be solved between a patient and their doctor.  These are the two most qualified parties that poses the most relevant information - not some bureaucratic task force.

The Right To Bear Arms

My older post about the Constitution combined with the personal knowledge that I am a gun owner spurred the following question: What is my take on the constitutional right to bear arms? The argument goes like this: If we are supposed to interpret the Constitution's words as they were meant back when they were penned, wouldn't the Constitution only allow members of a well-formed militia to keep firearms? There is another thought that the militia members stored their weapons in a militia armory and not in private homes. In this post, I'm going to attempt to explain the Second Amendment.

The ratification of the Constitution was not entirely smooth as there were several states that felt that the rights of individuals were not properly spelled out.  Many states passed legislation which tied their adoption of the Constitution to the later creation of the Bill of Rights that would more completely detail individual protections from the government.  Virginia passed its own bill of rights in 1776 called the Virginia Declaration of Rights with the following right:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

~Virginia Declaration of Rights

The first federal mention of the people's right to bear arms was by James Madison in a speech to congress in 1789 (before he was elected president in 1809).  In Madison's speech, which the following phrase was heavily influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, he proposed:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

~James Madison

For those of you that don't know, James Madison was the key architect behind both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  In this statement, he justifies the right of the people to bear arms because he sees a well formed militia as being the best defense of a free country - not a requisite of keeping arms.  It was

Lots of people focus on the well formed militia statement as indicating that only members of an organized military should have the right to keep and bear arms.  It is true that the militias fought off the British in America's fight for independence and it wasn't until the Civil War that drafts were the primary source of warfighters (the Vietnam War saw the last draft end in 1973 and today the US armed services is currently all volunteer service members).  However the key reason behind the bill of rights in the first place was to protect individual rights from infringement by the government.

The constitution was designed so that the people possessed more power than the government.  At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, standing armies were not popular because Europe had seen many armies rise up to rule over the people.  Additionally, people that lived on the frontier commonly had to protect themselves against Native Americans.  Many state constitutions included rights to bear arms for the purpose of self defense specifically (including Massachusetts).  Noah Webster (of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) had this to say with regards to the people's right to bear arms:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

~Noah Webster

 Another argument in this debate is that the second amendment was intended to be a state right rather than an individual right to bear arms for protection... the state has the right to have well regulated militias (all arms and ammunition would be stored in a common location for the use by the militia).  During Madison's speech to Congress, he thought these amendments should actually alter the wording of the Constitution itself and not added as a list to the end as they are now.  During his speech he suggested that the right to bear arms be inserted in Article 1 Section 9 between clauses 3 and 4.  Section 9 deals specifically with individual rights, where Section 8 deals with state rights, indicating that Madison had intended that the right to bear arms is specifically and individual right.  Additionally, in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

The US Constitution is meant to protect the people against their government.  It is recognized that the ability of the government to enforce unjust laws by force can not work if the people are able to defend themselves.  If I have missed or misrepresented anything, drop me a line in the comments!

The Real Issue Behind Health Care

The most talked-about topic today is the battle over health care reform going on in the US House of Representatives. It is absolutely clear that this country needs to do something about the way it handles health care. Insurance Premiums, prescription drugs, emergency care service, and routine doctor visit costs are all the highest they have ever been. There are people on every side of the argument that are very passionate about their views. This all sounds like a perfect mess for me to jump into!

Here is my sticking point, right off the bat: our country has an established process for dealing with social issues of this magnitude. The country is split very passionately right down the middle with very few people residing in the gray area. What is worse is that the two opposing sides are so passionate about their views that instead of having a real debate, they are demonizing the opposition and spreading false information. This doesn't do anyone any good because it only acts to hide what is actually important: The real issue.

The real issue is whether or not the Congress has the power to enact a health care reform plan regardless of how you feel about health care. I am not a monster who wishes death and inadequate health care onto those less fortunate than myself - I am a person that volunteers my time to help out my community. I am not rich to the point that I don't worry about money, so clearly I am also in favor of affordable care. My biggest concern right now is that I am watching the government stick its fingers into places it has no right being and I don't want it to get any worse.

The process I alluded to previously is detailed in the US Constitution. Some people will argue that the buck stops here with regard to the Health Care Reform Bill because Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution states exactly the Powers of Congress. It is quite clear that congress has no authority when it comes to telling the citizens of the United States what they must and must not do with regards to their health care. For an issue like this, there are constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendment (which most people forget about) is used when the people want to change or add something in the Constitution (such as congress' power over health care). It is really simple to add an amendment to the constitution - the process is outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution. The one catch is that 3/4 of the house of representatives AND the senate must ratify the amendment. 75% of the population must be on the same page in order for it to happen. If health care was such a no-brainer, then it would be easy to get enough votes for an amendment.

Before I go too far, I have heard a surprising number of people present the question of whether the constitution is even a relevant point of argument. Examples are thrown up such as warrant-less wire tapping and suspension of habeas corpus. If a government is willing to commit such acts which go against current constitutional amendments, what makes me think they will care about this issue? The US constitution is the guiding light for the country - the one document that can always be looked to when the country is divided. I say that the people have let this country stray too far from this path. Our government is straying from the constitution because the people don't care and let them get away with it. Why else is it that so many public figures are found guilty of corruption and still get re-elected into office? The function of government is to serve its people. The function of the people is to tell the government what they need. It is similar to the argument of who is to blame when a dog attacks a person: the owner for not controlling their dog, or the dog for directly committing the act? The constitution is absolutely relevant, and it is our job to make the government fall in line. Moving on.

The foundations of the current health care bill seem to be rooted in this one pesky line in the Constitution. One of the powers granted to congress is...

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

-Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution

That part in there about collecting taxes for the "...general welfare of the United States" has been widely interpreted to mean all sorts of things from the government's responsibility to help educate US citizens to providing for all of their health care needs. To really understand this statement, we need to first remember that the founding fathers wanted us to think of the document as it applied at the time of ratification and not construct an interpretation for today's world. What I mean by this is the constitution isn't a living document in the sense that it was made so long ago that the meanings have changed but rather today's words have changed around the meaning of the constitution. The meaning of the constitution is the same now as it was back when it was ratified - we have to come up with words that make sense to fit those meanings. James Madison (the 4th President and the principal author of the US Constitution) once said...

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

James Madison

In order to discover the intended meaning of the constitution, we have to look back at the people who actually wrote it. Madison spoke very clearly about the words "general welfare" in this section of the constitution. During Madison's time in office, congress had passed a bill that would provide federal funding for state improvements such as rural roads, bridges, and canals arguing that it would be in the general welfare of the people to have these improvements in their state.

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

James Madison

I'm sure there are some places to argue over interpretations in the Constitution, but this clearly isn't one of them. Based on the amount of controversy surrounding the current health reform bill, red flags should be going off in your head. Whatever your view is, I am certain you must be thinking that the other half of the country is insane for believing the opposite. Maybe we all need to take a breath, re-gain our bearings, and think logically. That is exactly what the constitution is for.