What is Wrong with National Healthcare?
by Larry Becraft
The current debate about “national health care” is exclusively centered on the merits of various provisions in the multiple versions offered by different factions in Congress, all of whom presume that America is destined to have such a program, in one form or another. Completely removed from the debate over this matter is any mention of the absence of constitutional authority for the feds to establish such a scheme in the jurisdiction of the several States. It is reputed that when an astute critic of this legislative tragedy noted this constitutional defect to a Congressman, he received a smug reply: “show me where we cannot enact this program.” Apparently, there are lots of constitutionally challenged federal legislators besides Pelosi.
There is one very profound constitutional objection to this federal gamble to subject Americans and their health care to the control of politicians and bureaucrats. Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdictions of the States. See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925)("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government"); Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926)(“It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”); and Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004)(“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are ‘the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.’ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 737, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has made the constitutional principle clear: ‘Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925); see also Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct. 650, 98 L.Ed. 829 (1954) (‘It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.’). The Attorney General ‘may not . . . regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.’ Conant, 309 F.3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”).
And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935).
Please spread the word and loudly object to your Congressman.
Larry Becraft
Fundamentals
of
Freedom
Gain a better understanding of our American Heritage, with a series of short emails
by John Conway
Sign up now!
The Four Boxes of Freedom
"What Can I Do ?"
... is a question often asked by newly-awakened patriots, who can no longer stand by and watch while their representatives sell them out. There are many answers to that question, such as "make phone calls" and "write letters to your Congressman" or "write letters to the editor" - each good suggestions. In fact, anything a person chooses to do will have a positive effect. It's important to be active, and vocal. But these may not be the best answers for you.Let's start with the premise that one person just can't do everything. Each of us, therefore, should choose the avenue of action where we believe we can be most effective, and focus our efforts there.
Making that choice is often done without much consideration of the various possibilities. Let's see if we can expand your range of choices, to help you find your "best fit."
The founders of our great nation bequeathed future generations with four general ways to defend liberty, as enumerated in various articles the constitution and bill of rights. First, and most familiar, is the "ballot box", which includes supporting candidates and communicating with representatives. Engaging in the political process is often the first thing that comes to mind.
Second, there is the "soap box." Many seem to have concluded that the "ballot box" has failed us. It's apparent from the tea parties, the town halls, and the march on Washington in record numbers, that they've taken figuratively to the "soap box."
The third defense of Liberty is the "jury box." The juror's role in defending liberty is little understood, but it's important. It will become more so as legislatures are dominated by collectivists who pass more and more tyrannical legislation. For example, just recently the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill providing for a $1000-a-day fine for any resident refusing a swine flu inoculation. If you were facing trial for refusing to be injected, I'm sure you'd want at least one person on your jury that understood their right and duty to judge the law, as well as the facts of your case, and knew they had the non-reviewable power to refuse to convict you. That is called Jury Nullification. It is our last peaceful defense of liberty before the "cartridge box." Many judges and prosecutors prefer to keep juries ignorant of our power as citizens. Fortunately, that ignorance is easily overcome.
Offering this leaflet to citizens when they first report for jury duty is one of the simplest, and most effective actions a person can undertake.
Here's a good video of patriots informing prospective jurors of their rights and power under the constitution. It would be very difficult for any government prosecutor to get a conviction under an unpopular law, if this were being done at every courthouse in your state.
I hope this will help to organize your thinking, and help you decide where best to focus your efforts.
The Power of an Informed Juror
The Acquittal of John Peter Zenger
One of the most important events in American journalism history occurred in New York on August 4, 1735. This, of course, was the libel trial of John Peter Zenger, printer of the New York Weekly Journal.
In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials. This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".
In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.
That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny.
(Source: the Fully Informed Jury Association)
The Wasted Vote
(By Victor Thorn, American Free Press)
Considering the widespread dissatisfaction and outright anger at what’s taking place in Washington these days, why would a single person in vote for either the Republicans or Democrats in next month’s election? Look at what these two parties have done:
An $850 billion bailout, increasing inflation, $12 billion a month for a needless war in Iraq, the Katrina clean-up debacle, an astronomical national debt, the 9-11 false-flag terror attacks, more arms sales, and billions for Israel, Patriot Act legislation, votescam elections, the housing collapse, continued outsourcing, increased unemployment, and continuing graft, greed, and deceit.
Yet in the 2004 presidential election, 99 percent of those who cast a ballot voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry (both Skull & Bones members). That means only 1 percent of voters selected someone running from a third party. When I asked Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin about this sorry state of affairs, he quoted Albert Einstein. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” He added, “It is insane to continue voting for establishment candidates and expecting anything to change in D.C.”
Baldwin is correct. It’s easy for us to complain about our representation (or lack thereof) in the nation’s capital, but the fault primarily lies with each of us. Nobody holds a gun to our heads when we enter a polling booth.
We’re absolutely free to pull whatever lever we so desire. Still, we keep sending Democrats and Republicans to Washington.
Insanity?
"Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity - act on your own rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind's rebirth.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The Constitution Society
