Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Much derided ancient document suddenly seen in a new light (again)


That ol' Constitution written well over 2 centuries ago by a bunch of white slave-owners certainly enjoys a rather ambivalent relationship with statists in this country. It was just 7 or 8 years ago when those folks fretted that the previous occupant of the White House was "shredding" it in his efforts to hunt down terrorists as well as keeping the country safe from the same.

More recently, however, statists have been singing a different tune, claiming that the document was hopelessly outdated as the founders could not have foreseen what has become their flavor-of-the-moment scourge, the assault rifle.

But true to form, the Constitution is making a comeback. And why is that? Because ObamaCare is in it or something according to House Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

From The Hill:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Monday night argued that the Constitution could be read in a way that implies the right to healthcare and education for all Americans.

Speaking on the House floor, Jackson Lee said the right to these services can be read into the Declaration of Independence, which preserves the rights of Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"One might argue that education and healthcare fall into those provisions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," she said. Jackson Lee also praised President Obama for fighting for these rights.

"I think that what should be continuously emphasized is the President's leadership on one single point: that although healthcare was not listed per se in the Constitution, it should be a constitutional right," she said.

(italics, ours)

It's embarrassing this person is an elected representative at the federal level. Such a fundamental lack of understanding of our founding documents is mind-boggling but that's a statist for you in fashioning rights out of thin air and then implying them into the Constitution and failing that, claiming they should be in the Constitution.

A statement declaring that the government shall not impede an individual's pursuits and should essentially stay the hell out of the individual's way, now comes back over 220 years later, according to SJL, in the form of an unsustainable government entitlement program in which participation is mandatory. A Declaration throwing off the chains of a tyrannical government now becomes the basis for government intrusion. Of course, the irony of this would be totally lost on her if confronted with it.

At this point we would like to liberate a comment from Sir Charles of Doo Doo Economics that was actually submitted in response to our post here regarding the abuse of executive branch powers:

My wife and I attended a progressive activist training class where the take away was: the only laws to be enforced are the ones we force them to enforce.Clearly in opposition to the rule of law.

The left is now calling the 2nd Amendment a "duhmendment."

A left leaning family member had no clue what #Gosnell might refer to.

These people clearly have no intention of defending the constitution or the bill of rights and really should not be given the same weight when considering their point of view or assigning weight to their opinions.

We're not sure if Lee's political world-view is as strident as the progressive lefties described above but whether she realizes it or not, she is advocating for a soft tyranny that does not come in the form of an overt police state rather the showering of goods and services by an imagined eternally-benevolent government upon its increasingly docile and servile citizens.

The selective enforcement of the law by a capricious agenda-driven hyper-partisan majority represents another path to tyranny as illustrated above by Sir Charles.

Our narrow interpretation of the Constitution may certainly contain its flaws but it is infinitely better than one that imagines that Constitution "rights" in the form of mandatory government programs are a source of individual happiness. For if we grant our government to give, give, give, we are also granting them the power to take, take, take and it will all be done with a smile on their face

We noted that Hot Air blogged about this also yesterday. As it piqued our interest as well, we made it a point to not read the post. As such, any comparable or parallel themes, thoughts or terminology would be entirely coincidental.


Doo Doo Econ said...

Thank you kind sir for the mention!

K T Cat said...

There are lots of ways to read the Constitution, you know. Like this, maybe.

.America of States United the for Constitution this establish and ordain do ,Posterity our and ourselves to Liberty of Blessings the secure and ,Welfare general the promote ,defence common the for provide ,Tranquility domestic insure ,Justice establish ,Union perfect more a form to Order in ,States United the of People the We