After reading the latest post, "Why America is FAILING," on Simply Blogical, I felt that a response was merited to refute the author's claims that United States has become a "non-constitutional republic," and that the Founding Fathers are to blame for shoddy wording of the Constitution.
The author claims at the beginning that "The United States of America was founded on the principal of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He then states that,
"The right to the pursuit of happiness is commonly misunderstood. People commonly mistake the pursuit of happiness for happiness itself, meaning they believe that the constitution promises happiness (goods and/or services) for “free” (i.e. healthcare). What they do not understand is that the constitution does not allow laws to contradict, and that being given goods/services for free by the government in fact contradicts the constitutional right to the liberty of others."
First of all, the words "pursuit of happiness" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What I assume the author is referring to is the text of the 5th and 14th Amendments which read, "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," the 5th referring to the Federal Government and the 14th referring to the State Governments.
What might help his cause is what follows in the 5th Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
However, he somehow overlooks what is arguably the most famous part of the Constitution, its founding creed: the Preamble. The Preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [emphasis added]
The meaning of justice can be debated. I take it to mean that all Americans are to be treated in a way that is just and equal under the established laws. Is it just for children to be denied access to health care because of preexisting conditions? I think not, but if the author believes this is infringing on the rights of insurance companies and that a human life doesn't outweigh the values of a liberal market system then we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of what is just.
What is harder to disagree on is the meaning of the clauses, "provide for the common defence," and, "promote the general Welfare." For instance, the first clause may serve as a justification for the draft. I will use WWII as an example because it is the last instance of a direct attack by another nation on the United States, thus truly requiring "defence." While the draft may impose on the liberty and even the life of a citizen, it is sometimes necessary for the common defence of the nation. (I do not advocate the use of the draft in the Vietnam conflict because I do not believe it was necessary for the defense of the United States.)
General welfare is the same idea. These clauses were not written with loopholes, nor were they written carelessly without thought for the citizens of the nation. The Constitution was established for the people of the United States collectively, not individually. The Founding Fathers realized that a country cannot be strong unless all of its citizens are strong and thus sought to promote the general welfare in addition to securing the blessings of liberty for the people of this country.
Now to address the author's claims that, "Taxation violates the constitution as it contradicts the right to liberty." Taxation is the only way to maintain a government and infrastructure, and therefore a country. When the Constitution gave the Congress the "power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," its goal was not to deprive citizens of liberty but to provide them with a functional society. Taxes pay for schools, military, infrastructure, police and fire services, prisons and a myriad of other things necessary to keep a society functional and able to provide its citizens with safety and security.
The author argues that while some taxes may be necessary, "once it is made possible to impose taxes for certain things, there is no basis for stopping more taxes from occurring" However, there are ways to protect the citizens from taxes they feel are unfair. The first is simply that they can vote for a representative who will oppose taxes that would violate the liberty of his or her constituents. If this fails, the other option is to file a legal case against the government to be decided in appellate and, eventually, the Supreme Court. There is a system of checks and balances purposefully implemented so that no one person or branch can impose tyranny upon the country. The Supreme Court holds the power to decide what laws and regulations imposed by Congress are and are not constitutional.
Today's America is not tyrannical. It is not a dictatorship and it is not authoritarian. To think otherwise, and to write a post about the Constitution without a single quote from that document, well that's just Simply Ilblogical.
No comments:
Post a Comment