January 27, 2013 - 1:39 am
- Are Obama and Rubio That Far Apart on Immigration Reform? By Bill Straub. And are Republicans racing to get to a comprehensive plan first?
- Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And the Devil You Know, by Roger Kimball. The line of the day, from Andrew McCarthy…
- Shocked! Shocked! By Human Rights Violations in North Korea, by Claudia Rosett. The UN finally notices a totalitarian hellhole. What, if anything, happens next?
- 5 Things My Dogs Taught Me About Human Beings, by John Hawkins. You can learn a lot from a dog.
- Far from Complete: Great Books Missing in the Kindle Format, by Ed Driscoll. Here’s my personal wish list. What’s yours?
Regarding immigration–Well, both the Democrats and the Republicans are more the parties of rule of ballot box than the parties of rule of law, so if they are close to a compromise, it would not surprise me. They will rationalize anything to get power. But, for the record, the former United States had a right to be its own culture, WASP-oriented in tone (though not in ethnicity), define its own borders, admit who it wished and keep out others, and to incur no disdain over doing any of the above. But that was the former United States. It no longer exists, apparently.
If we had a “reboot” and everybody got a choice on whether or not to get on board the new social compact or just go on their own way, my signature would not be there.
I’d like to note that the last social compact required 9/13 majority for ratification.
It couldn’t be done today. We are kept together by force of arms.
9/12, sorry. Rhode Island did not attend. But the point is clear–we do not have 75% consensus on the direction of this country, either the left’s or the right’s vision. Thus, when Obama rams his stuff through to “transform” the country, he is relying on the police power of the state to make it effective.
Thus, when he himself flouts the law, he makes himself illegitimate.
At Fox’s webpage, there is an article that the contraception mandate is moving to the Supreme Court (though no actual taking up has been done yet, I believe).
I’d like to point out two things (beyond peyote): first, if it is legal to make objecting employers pay for contraception, it is then legal to mandate Muslims fund pork for employees, and Hindus beef, if a public health purpose can be found (or, better yet, to make Muslim soldiers bite down on/handle cartridges coated with pig fat, if we started doing that and there was a public need to do so (see Sepoy Mutiny)). I’d also like an explanation why the government can find the ability to waive prohibitions against beards in military service for Sikhs and others, but somehow making accomadations for Christians on something else is beyond the pale. Why is this not an equal protection violation under the 14th amendment? The cases and rules may be different but the principles are the same. The government has made a waiver based upon religion, despite at least a reasonable case for the rule in the first place. I’d note too the cost of contraception should be factored in here, and when I do I personally conclude that HHS does not like Catholicism and enjoys this process, merely for the “up yours, believers” factor.
Second, the plantiffs in these cases are clearly paying for the contested services, despite some saying they are not, that it is all bound up in the insurance and they incur no real costs. Nonsense. To show this, we state, hopefully without proof, that nothing in life is “free”. It can be given away for free, but this does not mean it has no value. The government has mandated that there will be contraception in insurance plans. The mere fact that it mandates this means it is something that has value, else the government would not bother, nor would any recipient care. This value must therefore be created, and must be presumably paid for. There are five sources that could pay for it–the maker, the middleman (insurer), the employer, the employee, or the government. The government clearly sees a public purpose, but has decided not to fund. It cannot take it directly from the manufacturer without compensation, and has chosen not to make the employee pay for it. We are thus left with two choices–employer, or insurance company, both whom are being told to provide this service or else. Thus, beyond the takings issue (which there is, and one could argue via the Tenth that one has a right to engage in economic commerce, period, as a natural law right, and that the government thus has not rendered just compensation when it mandates I fund something unrelated to necessary business regulation as a condition to merely be allowed to enter the economic arena, which I have as a right to do. Why not say I must fund a battalion of infantry out of my own pocket, merely to enter the marketplace? That also serves a public purpose.)
The fact that the government is willing to spend the funds on enforcement and litigation should indicate it is arguing for something of value, and thus the idea that the plantiffs are not paying for it is ludicrous, because the government is going to a lot of trouble to make something available without paying for it itself, and that naturally means someone is, because the value is there, and unless the creator of the value is giving it away for free, it has to be paid for by someone.
And the creator is not giving it away for free.
Regarding eminent domain and takings for public purposes–if the government mandates something, and then has its own programs that essentially provide the same thing at no or reduced cost to the recipients, the the government has clearly taken private property for a public purpose (because the government is using the mandate to effectively expand the scope of its own similiar programs that it itself cannot fund), and the only question is if just compensation has been provided. I would argue it usually hasn’t, especially as the Tenth says I don’t have to have the explicit permission of the Federal government as a fundamental condition of existence in society, thus the Federal government cannot put overly stenuous restrictions upon me for its approval of my mere existence, which includes economic activity.
The Ninth and Tenth say that the people cannot be made auxiliaries of the Department of Health and Human Services, as a condition of simply being allowed to function in society.