Exploring Constitutional Rights

I was listening to a very smart woman on the radio as I ran errands this morning. She's a Civil Rights and Constitutional attorney. She is, as Joe Biden would say of this young black woman, "so articulate". I assume she is also clean, Joe. She spoke of being fiscally conservative and morally conservative. It was the fiscally conservative part that interested me today.

She's not an Obama supporter, so I hope Michelle Obama doesn't listen to her show. Michelle would call her up and lecture her on loyalty. All about race for the bi-racial candidate.

One caller to her radio show spoke of voting a straight ticket. She chided him, gently, saying it is impossible to believe that one party is worthy of every single vote from any party member. One Obama supporter called in and said he wants free health care. Another called and thanked her for being a breath of fresh air as far as constitutional integrity was concerned. She spoke of the rise of socialism in our country - not just the current financial crisis but of the rise of the far left in this country demanding 'change' which America has never benefited from historically.

She spoke of the constitutional guarantees to American citizens: There are only three. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We are a country who values life. We are a free country and the single most important task for the Commander-in-Chief is to keep the homeland safe. The pursuit of happiness is just that. Not the certainty of happiness for all.

All the other 'rights' for Americans have come in the form of constitutional amendments: the right to vote for women, for blacks, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc.

One issue she was passionate about is that there is no constitutional right to health care. Government issued health care doesn't work well - look at Medicaid and the problems those relying on it have - and a full scale universal kind of health care will not be anything but disaster for our economy either. Look at Great Britain. As the economy there continues to tighten, the Brits have even resorted to declaring after a certain age - decided by government workers - a citizen isn't entitled to a necessary transplant or other expensive treatment avenue. Think about that.

Why do Canadians come here for health care? How about Mexicans? Or the European elite who can afford the trip and private care? We have the best medical care in the world. No question. Our health care crisis is in the form of health insurance availability, not health care. A market driven solution is the best to increase availability, through transparency, through transferability, through the ability to go across state lines to get coverage.

Recently, only about seven months ago, the state of Hawaii implemented mandatory state coverage for all children. Sounds noble, right? Who doesn't think all children deserve health care availability? Problem was that since it was available through the state, parents opted out of coverage through employers and personal policies which required co-payments of premiums. So, now the state is no longer able to afford the universal state coverage.

What is the surprise here? There is none to a thinking person. Who would pay for a premium if it was guaranteed somewhere else to be free? Hawaii has a Republican woman governor. Surprise you?

The government doesn't create jobs. The government is a huge bureaucratic nightmare. It is not efficient and is incapable of operating outside of a one-size-fits-all mindset. The problems arise because no family fits that description for health care insurance needs or anything else for that matter.

We can thank FDR and LBJ for much of today's self centered expectations of American voters. Those in our country who live by the gimme gimme mindset. I want it so I'm entitled to have it. Right now. Hoover raised taxes bringing on the Great Depression. FDR extended himself additional presidential terms in his zeal to rule the country. Social programs galore, keeping the citizens dependent and loyal. LBJ decided the way to changing human behavior was through government mandates. The results of all this? The ninth ward of New Orleans. The south side of Chicago. Harlem. East L.A. Lots of examples out there.

Thanks to the leadership of politicians like Newt Gingrich, welfare was finally changed for the better. But only after 2 vetoes from President Clinton and hysterics from Hillary and her supporters. A balanced budget was required thanks to Newt Gingrich, too. Clinton likes to take the credit - he was President - but it was only because it was demanded by Congress and he eventually had to accept the legislation, after refusing vehemently for months and months.

How many candidates have made promises of more government giveaways only to not keep the promises once the reality of budgets became apparent? I would argue that it is not patriotic to pay more taxes - it is patriotic to take responsibility for yourself and your family. Less government, not more, creates more individual freedom.

Yes, a safety net is necessary for those unable to care for themselves. No one wants the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, those least able to care for themselves to suffer. Government has a moral responsibility to help those citizens. But, it is not a constitutional responsibility.

For more 'rights', the constitutional amendment process is available.