Will Liberals Ever Recognize the Constitution?
Each sentence I write has significance in the point that it is making. And when I pontificate on topics of how our elected officials overstep the restraints on their power I try to make a habit of using history to prove my point by quoting the Constitution. Whatever the issues happen to be, such citations are to show that my ideas are not “radical” and are designed to lay the ground work for showing how those that disagree with me ignore the real issues and are the real “radicals”. And without fail when the responses of the political left are rather typical.
Take for example the article I wrote two weeks ago. “Go West Young Liberals! Go West!” was a perfect example of how the left really never addresses the issues but instead plays a sinister game of hide the salami. The whole purpose of which is to avoid the truth.
“Go West Young Liberals!” was a dissertation about how the California Assembly passed a bill to grant all Californians health care coverage managed by the State and to be paid for (of course) by taxing California workers. In the article I cited two major breaches of the Constitution that this law brought up. First, was that it interfered with Article I, Section 10 which, in association with the 14th Amendment, prevents states from interfering with the freedom of the people to contract with whomever they wanted to for legal services. This law would instead say that you only have the right to contract with the State and the State alone. The second issue was that it interfered with the 14th Amendment’s “due process” protection. This protection prohibits the removal of liberties in general without one’s day in court, that such proceedings be fair and also without being found guilty of a crime. And I was unaware that having healthcare outside of a state run program was a “crime”. I even cited a case where a law in the State of Louisiana was thrown out for just such reasons (Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)) as it restricted the right to contract.
But how did those that disagreed respond? Out of the hundreds of responses I read in emails and on sites that distributed that article not one, not a single one, of those that prefer such socialism and arbitrary government control addressed seriously the court case, Article I, Section 10 or the 14th Amendment. Granted my articles wind up on more sites than I can possibly visit but one would think that out of all those responses that I was able to read someone on the left would have at least made a serious attempt to address the Constitution. It is the “supreme law of the land” after all.
Instead, like I said, the responses by the left were typical. There certainly was lots of praise for the plan and numerous replies about how they liked the idea and how it was “needed”. And there was certainly a lot of scorn hurled my way from “compassionate” liberals. I was called a “racist”, “bigot”, “sexist”, and “anti-immigrant” as well as a “NAZI” by people who wish to redefine terms to suit their agenda. One particularly vile email even called me “lap dog for the fascist corporate state” without even citing any evidence other than the writer’s own vitriolic beliefs.
More than one respondent even questioned how I, as a middle class, working American, could not possibly see the virtues of such a plan and the glorious solution it provided. All in typical liberal “we know what’s best for you” fashion to try to paint me as some sort of dunderhead who could not see the obvious. Of course what was actually “obvious” was that I believed that I was better able to decide how to spend my own money; that I believed in liberty. How “radical”!
In fact there was only one person on the hard left that even tried to address the Constitutional concerns. But when he misquoted Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as saying that Congress was “explicitly granted authority to provide medical care and coverage for all citizens” (his quotation NOT mine) and later that the “Federalist Papers were a concoction of the right wing in the 1980’s and no original copies had ever been found” to dismiss Madison’s “general Welfare” explanation in Federalist 41 you can only imagine the laughter that ensued on my part. Not to mention as the lack of credibility I proceeded to give his argument.
I don’t scratch my head at such responses any more. When I first started writing and publishing my opinion I’ll admit they did perplex me. But as time has worn on I have learned that there are many people who would rather simply promote their agenda and recruit more useful idiots to their left wing cause of over reaching government than answering serious questions in a serious manner. Especially when those questions are about how much power their fellow travelers really have to control our lives. They can only twist words so far before they break them.
So instead Constitutional concerns are all too often swept under the rug in hopes that they will be at best ignored or at worst eventually forgotten by a populace generally ignorant about the foundations of our country, it’s Constitution and the our founding fathers left to their posterity. After all the Constitution really isn’t that important right? At least not to them since it generally gets in the way of their pursuit of power. It’s only real purpose is basically as fancy toilet paper with which to wipe their rear ends.
And as long as that is how they view the “supreme law of the land” there is no hope when arguing with the left. Much like you cannot argue with a four year old in line at that grocery store demanding a candy bar and throwing a tantrum until they either get the sweets or have their bottoms beaten to a nice shade of red. Unfortunately we seem to have an aversion to corporal punishment these days. Which means that we are overrun by a lot of four-year-olds stuffing their faces with a lot of candy bars they should not have.
