Tuesday, March 27, 2012

It all comes down to a simple question...

     On the way home from PA today I listened to CSPAN's coverage of the Supreme Court in which the merits of Obamacare were argued. Afterwards I was struck by the simplicity of the question involved and what it means for all of us going forward. No matter how many hours of coverage are spent on this, no matter how many pundits chime in with their opinions, no matter how many articles are written for or against the law, it all boils down to this. Does the Federal Government of the United States have the right to make its citizens buy individual health insurance.
     In my opinion the Constitution strictly forbids our Federal Government from this type of heavy handedness. My opinion seems to have been bolstered by Justices on both sides of the aisle. Justice Kennedy opined for instance that the government was asking the court to fundamentally change the relationship with its citizens from what exists now. Justice Ginsburg was equally convincing when she attempted on several occasions to fit other types of mandates into this question. On all accounts she failed. For those who did not hear the arguments, one of her points was that the government regulates cars and makes us buy cars that are safe according to Federal standards. I thought the lawyers for the states were clear and succinct in their response to those examples. No one has to buy a car in the first place and that is the central point of the argument. This was the response given on all examples provided by her in one way or another. In asking those questions the justices showed a clear path of how the government would turn a favorable decision into a much broader power grab. It did not take much imagination to see how we could all be forced to eat certain foods, engage in certain behaviors or to have to buy other products all in the name of being healthier. On one point, all of the lawyers and Justices seemed to agree, most Americans will eventually need health care.
     I was struck by the simple truth in that statement. "Most" is not all and our constitution was uniquely created to protect the individual from the will of the masses when it comes to personal liberty. It is the fundamental difference between a true democracy and a republic, which is what the United States really is. For instance there was no mention of the millions of people who can pay their own way or of the millions of people here illegally who will not be mandated to pay yet still be eligible for care at the emergency room. I was surprised that point was not made during the arguments but I suspect it will surface soon.
     While it may seem reasonable to expect people to pay for their own care in one way or another, I think this law is an over reach of Federal Power and I believe the mandate will be struck down. Time will tell if I am right but God help us all if I'm not.....

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Safety over Liberty?

     Recently it was disclosed that the New York City Police department has been electronically monitoring groups of Muslims residing in places like Newark, New Jersey and Yale University for over ten years. According to numerous reports, if the investigation uncovered suspicious activity, undercover officers were dispatched to conduct surveillance operations on those persons involved. All of this was done without any  warrants, probable cause of criminal activity and apparently without regard for the constitutional rights of the American Citizens who were the targets of these probes. When confronted with the public scrutiny these activities deserve, NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly literally laughed off the questions and brazenly admitted his department's involvement. He rationalized the activities by stating the safety of New York City was paramount to any constitutional rights that may have been violated. Mayor Bloomberg then publicly praised Commissioner Kelly and vowed to continue the activities. Unbelievably, the source of the funding for these operations may have come from the Homeland Security Department and the White House. On his morning radio show on WABC in New York, Geraldo Rivera fielded several calls from listeners who voiced their opinions on the matter. Although it is not a scientific poll, anecdotal evidence suggests New Yorkers were very much in support of these actions by their police department.
     Frustrated with these views, I called in and pointed out the NYC Police do not have jurisdiction outside of the city and was laughed at. I then asked how New Yorkers would feel if the Mayor of Boston sent police officers to spy on Irish American neighborhoods in NYC. Geraldo's answer? "Well, how do you know he isn't already?" When I mentioned none of the current spying operations by the NYPD would have prevented 9-11 from happening, I was met with dubious skeptisism.
     So what about the surveillance operations? Well, like it or not, the NYC does not have a right to spy on fellow American Citizens without probable cause that a crime is involved, no matter what their intentions are. As reported by Fox News   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/can-police-spy-on-us/ no police agency has the authority to do what the NYPD is doing. How this ends up is anybodys guess but I hope everyone who has been a victim of these operations takes legal action against the agencies involved. At the very least there should be a rigorous debate about the perception of safety versus the constitutional rights we all enjoy. Is there a point when civil rights violations in the pursuit of safety are unacceptable? If so have we reached that point yet with the ever intrusive TSA searches and now police covert spying operations all in the name of preventing another 9-11? I hope so because any further escalation of this philosophy will only lead to a complete destruction of our free society as we know it now. Think I'm being too dramatic? Think it can't happen here? If you do, I suggest you read up on some of your world history because there are plenty of examples of free societies who destroyed themselves from within with these same views and actions.