Recently, I received an e-mail from Patients First regarding President Obama’s March 3rd speech to the press and to the American people which called on Congress to provide quick and decisive action on Health Care Reform legislation. The President asked Congress to break Senate rules by using reconciliation, a simple majority rules process used for budget bills, to pass the non-budget, Health Care Reform legislation. The e-mail presented the facts about the legislation and called on the recipients to contact their members of Congress. The effects of this legislation would be so detrimental to our nation’s economy and our personal liberties that I decided to forward the e-mail on to friends and family across the nation to encourage them to also contact Congress in opposition to the Health Care Reform bill.
I was more than a bit surprised when I received the following response back from an old friend that I have not seen in many years:
“Have to tell you that I am somewhat in support of governmental healthcare. Part of the governments job is to protect it’s citizens and look out for their welfare. The democrats grabbed a major victory in the last election and with that comes a policy direction for the next 2-4 years. The Republicans better start working to connect back with the American people if they want to continue to direct this country. I wasn’t thrilled with the way things went for the 8 years before Obama.”
Certainly, not everyone will agree with my point-of-view regarding specific Federal policies. However, at what point do we begin to question if the Federal government has overstepped its bounds? Can we have any certainty that our thoughts on a matter are not merely just our opinion with no weight of authority? I questioned for a while if I should respond to this e-mail. While I have not talked to this person in several years due to miles of separation, this person is an old friend, and I did not want to strain that friendship. In the end, I decided that I needed to respond to put forth the truth and hope that this person would at least consider the merits of my argument.
The statement that gave me pause and prompted me to respond was: “Part of the governments job is to protect it’s citizens and look out for their welfare.” After all, that really is the crux of the matter. If that statement defines the job description of the Federal government, well then by all means Congress should pass universal health care and a great many other things for the public good.
The section of the U.S. Constitution cited in defense of this job description of government is found in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have 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;…” The remainder of Section 8 is then devoted to a laundry list of powers granted to Congress, such as coining and borrowing money, establishing the Postal System, declaring war, raising and supporting an army and navy, etc. From this clause, I can see that the Federal government does have a charge to protect the States and their citizenry from invasion and rebellions by means of an army and navy. However, does “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” include mandating everyone must obtain health insurance or pay a fine; the Federal government can operate a health insurance exchange or simply provide coverage, like Medicare; the Federal government can create a Comparative Effectiveness Research panel to determine which treatments are effective, both from a medical and a cost perspective, regardless of the opinion of the patient or their doctor?
It is odd to me that there is endless debate on this subject when James Madison, Founding Father and one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, has already weighed in on the matter. The reader is doubtless familiar with the Federalist Papers which were penned by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York to encourage them to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Federalist 41 examines this section of the Constitution and addresses some concerns and objections to the powers granted to the Federal government. The final one-fifth of the document addresses objections raised by some who construed the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause to mean that the new Congress shall have the right “…to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Thus, Congress would simply need to state that a piece of legislation is needed to provide for the general welfare, and Congress would instantly have jurisdiction in the matter. We should all reacquaint ourselves with this document, but especially this final one-fifth. Madison declares these objectors’ arguments to be baseless. He states that “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…” In other words, if the Constitution did not contain a listing of defined and enumerated powers directly following the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause, separated only by a semicolon, then the objectors might have had a point. Madison then asks the question: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” He then explains: “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.” In other words, the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause is bounded by the enumerated powers defined directly following the clause. This point of view is further bolstered by the final clause of Article 1, Section 8 which reads: “And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Thus, all laws created by the Congress must in some way pertain to the defined and enumerated powers listed previously in this section or that are elsewhere granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, including in the Amendments.
In the days of our Founding there were doctors and patients. As with any other individual, doctors would have needed to charge for their services to provide for the necessities of life. Yet our Founding Fathers did not see the need to regulate how much could or should be charged for such services, and they did not include having ones medical expenses paid for by others as a right, though the Founders could have easily done so through the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to mandate that a citizen must purchase a product, not even medical expense insurance. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to decide what medical treatment is necessary and proper. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to collect taxes from one to pay for the medical expenses of another.
I do not say these things to be insensitive or because I do not care about the hardships of others. I absolutely do care, and as a Christian I believe that Christians have been charged by God to care for the fatherless, the widows, our elders, the sick. However, that charge belongs to the Body of Christ, not to the government. From a legal perspective, I believe that any social or corporate welfare is unconstitutional and is a form of “soft” tyranny, as the government, without the consent of the governed, must take from one to give to another. From a spiritual perspective, I believe that social welfare from the government usurps the spiritual authority of the Church. It is the blessing of the Body of Christ, synagogues, mosques, and community organizations to provide charity in their local communities, apart from the Federal government.
So, what then is the job of our Federal government? Our Founders were well acquainted with tyrannical forms of government. A tyrant dispenses and revokes the liberties of the people according to his own pleasure. Our Founders understood that true rights are innate. Therefore, they cannot be granted or revoked by any mortal power. The job of just government then is to make secure those rights. That is the job description our Founding Fathers ascribed to government in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Since the Federal government is already involved in the health care industry through onerous regulations, Medicare, subsidies to the Medicaid system of the States, what does any of this matter? John Adams penned the phrase “a government of laws and not of men.” Are we still a nation of laws, or are we ruled by the emotional feelings, the passions, of the moment; the fairness of a thing? I believe that is a question that America must ask itself. For a long time now, we have strayed from our Constitutional foundations. We must decide to either right ourselves back on that foundation, amend the Constitution to reflect what we now believe to be good government and repeat again when we once again disagree, or destroy our foundation and start over with something new, perhaps socialism or fascism would be more to the peoples’ liking. If we choose the later two, then America is headed for dark days and posterity will be slaves to the debt of ours and future generations. The exceptional America once described by Alexis de Tocqueville will cease to exist. If we decide to be a nation of laws, then we will have the opportunity to once again enjoy the Liberty that has been granted us by God.
NC Freedom does not show support or opposition to any bills discussed in this article. The author's opinion on the action that should be taken in regards to this bill may or may not reflect the view of NC Freedom.
Opinion articles from NC Freedom members. The views expressed in Editorial articles published on NC Freedom are those of the authors alone. They may or may not represent the views or opinions of NC Freedom or those who volunteer to maintain the site.
More Bureaucracy: Creates comparative effectiveness panels, a Medicare Advisory Board and a Health Care Commissioner, all of whom would be responsible for oversight of the greatly-expanded government role in health care and invoking rationing in attempts to contain cost
