Tag Archives: health care

Why aren’t patriots demanding a halt to military spending?

If I were a savvy investor, I would already have sunk a ton of money into those tri-cornered hats that have become all the rage among patriots these days. You know, the hats worn by Americans in colonial times. They really do go with anything!

While we’re at it, let’s not forget the “Don’t tread on me” T-shirts popping up everywhere. Now that America is under siege from socialists, as demonstrated by the government takeover of health care, these items will be flying off the shelves. And had I diverted my financial resources into this kind of merchandise, I would have been swimming in cash.

But once again, I’m a day late and a dime short — with only myself to blame.

Many people involved in the Tea Party movement, along with their like-minded comrades (whoops, wrong choice of words), have become very animated about the health care reform legislation signed into law this week. I had no idea there were so many legal scholars among us! Everyone on TV waving a U.S. flag or a handgun — or both, in some cases — screaming about how we should take our country back is undoubtedly a noted authority on the intracacies of constitutional law.

If you don’t believe me, just ask them — they’ll tell you. Down to the last subparagraph, they know what’s in the Constitution and how it should be interpretted.

And one thing that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution is socialized medicine. It’s right there in black and white. … Well, somewhere. It must be in there, if all these patriots are telling me it is.

But seeing that we’ve been overrun by constitutional scholars, I don’t understand why they’re not up in arms (figuratively speaking, of course, unless it becomes literal) over all the other unconstitutional things that Congress has done. Take, for example, the perpetual funding of a government-run army.

In listing what Congress may do with taxes, duties, imposts and excises, the 12th clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.”

Wow, that’s very revealing! From the way the Constitution reads, keeping an army around for longer than two years is, well, unconstitutional. Who knew?

Certainly not the patriots who are working to save us from the nightmares of marxism. For if they did know this, they would already have marched on Washington demanding an immediate end to socialized defense.

An argument can be made that Congress appropriates money to everything it funds on an annual basis, unless otherwise stipulated. So appropriations made to any branch of the military is done every year, thus falling within the two-year limit imposed by the Constitution.

Does this logic pass constitutional muster? Perhaps not.

When the country was founded, national defense forces were normally raised as they were needed. The Continental Army was put together for the purpose of fighting the Revolutionary War, and then it was disbanded once the war ended.

In adddition, the Constitution differentiates between congressional authority to “raise and support armies” and “provide and maintain a navy.” Since the greatest threats came from sea-based forces, having a permanent navy was essential. Not so a permanent army.

So, as I read the Constitution, Congress is permitted to raise an army and fund it for no more than two years — and then the army is to be disbanded. This conflicts with the practice of enlisting or commissioning military personnel for many years. How can someone sign up for four to six years if the Constitution demands the army be funded for no more than two years at a stretch?

Where are our Tea Party constitutionalist patriots when we need them? The government has been subverting the supreme law of the land for many years, and it’s high time this practice be stopped.

Has anybody seen my pitchfork?


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Everyone’s least favorite nanny takes on health care

Is there any personal concern that people may confront that Gov. Rod Blagojevich won’t seek to “remedy” through sleight of hand legislation?

The Illinois Senate earlier this week approved a measure paving the way for parents to keep their children on their health insurance policies until they turn 26 — the age limit is raised to 30 if the child is in the military (which is funny, because I’d think someone serving in the military would be covered by the federal government).

Blago apparently used his amendatory veto power (hocus pocus dominocus) to draft the legislation last week, and the Senate turned the bill into law this week with a 35-17 vote. And the youths don’t even have to live with their parents — or even in the state — although they must remain single.

Gov. “Hazel” (my new nickname for him, since he wants to be everyone’s nanny) thinks this is a terrific plan for the 300,000 young people eligible to take advantage of this. What didn’t occur to him is that many of the remaining 12 million Illinois residents will have to pay higher insurance premiums as a result. Regardless of what Hazel believes, there are no free lunches when it comes to insurance.

Why do legislators believe they should be running this portion of the private sector? Centralized economic planning has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

First Hazel tosses a lifetime supply of bus tokens to senior citizens, and now he wants Chad and Buffy to get extended insurance benefits. He must realize that his chances of re-election or incredibly slim, so perhaps he’s positioning himself for a Nobel Peace Prize

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized