Archive for March, 2010

Thoughts on Obamacare passage

March 22, 2010

We have come to a time where the evidence displays a constitutional failure in process in the enactment of a healthcare overhaul. The mask of a process of representative governance has come off revealing the face a socialistic hegemony capable of ramming through a program without proper regard for process and certainly not representing the majority of citizens in forcing through the radical agenda of a new healthcare paradigm. Instead of the members of congress continuing to represent their constituents, some of the “apparatchik”-like congress people have abandoned any strongly held regards of their constituents and are ultimately only beholding to the titular figures of their party. It is very disconcerting to see party members cave to “apparatchik” coercion who have previously offered principled objections to both the content and the process of the bill currently being enactment. One can certainly hope that the constituents of each socialist-leaning member of congress will remember these departures of their district politicos from constitutional processes so that they never reward their actions in the coming elections. Why would citizens ever trust these rascals again, anyway?
Consider. Whether these congress persons deserted their constitutional obligation to represent their constituency early or in the last-minute crush of back-room deals shouldn’t matter. They have surrendered principle whenever they sold out to this program that so radically damages the independence of all the nation’s citizens. As a republic we deserve a more sympathetic regard from these members of congress who now have moved to enact strong-handed government dominance on a people who have long cherished personal independence. The new paradigm is extremely punitive in forcing a government fix that is really no business of the federal entity anyway. Tenth Amendment provisions of the U.S. Constitution require that matters not specifically mandated by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people (in the absence of State provision). We have been denied due process when the national governing (Federal) entity subsumes the role of independent people. It is no doubt true that the United States Congress has through history flagrantly violated constitution principles of this Tenth Amendment.
Why would any constitutional officer of the Federal government violate such a sacred trust? This writer is reminded of the salacious act of certain male persons to proposition a virtuous woman to deflower her purity. If he first offers an outrageously generous price for her to surrender that she even entertains the notion and, subsequently, he begins to offer reduced compensations, she may recoil with protestations. Party leaders are like this lecherous one who in search for their continuing self aggrandizement and dominance have repeatedly offered all manner of largess (often at cost to the citizens) to the junior legislators for them to squander their reputation in order to join ranks in any such aggrandizing scheme. It is true that lobbyists have played this scenario too. When any novice legislator succumbs to these offers it is proved that they are not beholding to any principle that they may have had as they entered the arena of public role. Henceforth, it is no longer a question of whether principle is surrendered but rather at what price they are willing to sell out. Seemingly, it then becomes a way of their continuing behavior. It is analogous to the lecherous lout’s retort to the virtuous female who upon negotiation of lower prices for her surrender exclaims that “I am not that type of a woman.” His reply may be that they had already established that she is “that type of a woman.” Instead the lout informs her “we are now only negotiating the price.” This writer sees an awful abundance of similarity with the machinations of the American Congress and Executive and that nefarious solicitation of sexual favor. In fact, it is too often the proffering of salacious sexual acts that also influences the legislators. With law makers so often compromised in any native principle, why should we ever keep them in office?