I am convinced that an Article V Convention of States may be our nation’s last hope for preserving liberty and returning an out-of-control federal government to its proper, constitutional place.
As a lover of our Constitution, I can appreciate genuine concerns about the adequacy of procedural safeguards to ensure that this great bulwark of self-governance does not become the victim of some “runaway convention” or leftist conspiracy. The proper response to such genuine concerns is the provision of accurate information. So, to those who have expressed such concerns to me, I have responded by providing historically accurate data which demonstrate that: (a) our current Constitution is decidedly not the product of a “runaway convention,” but is absolutely legitimate; (b) there is no real mystery as to the methodology of an interstate convention, because such conventions were prevalent at the time Article V was drafted; and (c) there are incredibly strong safeguards in place to ensure the demise of any conspiracy to subvert the will of the States that issue the call for restraining federal power.
Of course, at the end of the day, no one can provide the fearful fretters with an ironclad guarantee about any future event. At the end of the day, each of us must choose whether we will take what tools we have been given and use them to repair the damage that ill-conceived, anti-historical interpretations of our Constitution have done to the social compact our forefathers constructed, or whether, instead, we will bury our heads in our hands, insisting that the tools provided in the Constitution itself are dangerous and that there are insufficient competent laborers to perform the commission.
Great men and women will choose the former. They will choose to act.
They will tremble at the gravity and enormity of the task. They will consider carefully the textual provisions of the Constitution that have been perverted to facilitate federal aggrandizement and the alternative textual antidotes that would best clarify—in black and white--the actual intentions of the noble, learned drafters of the original text. They will labor diligently to educate constituents, friends and neighbors so as to foster educated, informed participation and ownership by the people. They will count the cost.
But in the end, great Americans will be driven to action by the conviction that a nation aspiring to be a self-governing people under God cannot also be a nation of people who passively succumb to tyranny because they are afraid of wielding the very weaponry provided to preserve their liberty. They will ascribe to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s view that the right path is the path of Action:
“Daring to do what is right, not what fancy may tell you,
Valiantly grasping occasions, not cravenly doubting—
freedom comes only through deeds, not through thoughts taking wing.
Faint not nor fear, but go out to the storm and the action,
Trusting in God whose commandment you faithfully follow;
Freedom, exultant, will welcome your spirit with joy.”
Showing posts with label The Role of Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Role of Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Monday, October 7, 2013
"Social Issues" and "The Economy"
Conventional political wisdom suggests that candidates must avoid, at all costs, the appearance of being focused on “divisive social issues” and instead focus exclusively on the economy. This is a false dichotomy of issues.
When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.
Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.
According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.
In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.
A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.
On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.
The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.
Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.
Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.
We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.
When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.
This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.
Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.
When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.
Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.
According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.
In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.
A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.
On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.
The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.
Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.
Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.
We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.
When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.
This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.
Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Affordable Care Act - The Good, The Bad, and The Revolutionary
Last night I attended an informational meeting at which national health care law expert Tim Jost explained some features of the Affordable Care Act and answered audience questions. Jost is a law professor at my alma mater, Washington & Lee University School of Law, and he has been actively involved in the creation of the ACA. In other words, he knows his stuff.
I found the session informative and helpful, although I still don't pretend to have an understanding of all of the workings of the behemoth legislation. While I don't typically like to discuss issues that I don't thoroughly understand, I am resigned to the fact that holding myself to this principle, in the case of this particular issue, would mean forever dismissing the opportunity of commenting.
And so, with that disclaimer, here are some of my thoughts on the beleaguered legislation.
First, the GOOD:
-It is good, noble, and right that we, as a society, demonstrate a concern for the poor, sick, and elderly among us. Therefore, it is also fitting for us to explore ways of ensuring that those who cannot care for themselves receive the tangible help that they need.
-From what I learned last night, there are elements of the law that make good sense. For instance, it seems wise to offer tax credits for those who are struggling financially, yet take responsibility for their future health care needs by purchasing health insurance. Giving them a tax break to help them pay for their premiums is likely to inure to everyone's benefit by allowing them to obtain preventive care and reducing the incidence of "uncompensated care" (which increases the costs of health care for everyone).
-Building upon the second point, it seems appropriate for the ACA to forbid some of the sharp practices by wealthy insurance companies that devastate individuals and cost taxpayers dearly. As I learned last night, the ACA precludes insurers from dropping an insured's coverage once he or she becomes seriously ill. Apparently companies will sometimes go back and identify a misstatement in the application or loophole in the contract once the insured starts to incur serious expenses. This is unjust and should be stopped.
But there is plenty of BAD in the Affordable Care Act as well:
-The law is over 900 pages. Need I say more? We are an overregulated people already, and legislation that approaches the length of War and Peace should raise serious concerns in anyone who has a genuine desire to know, understand, and abide by the law. In the middle of a hectic day, I am sometimes seized by the fear that some government bureaucrat will come knocking on my door to inform me that in the process of carrying on some industrious activity in good faith, I have violated the fine print of an obscure regulation. Am I neurotic? Maybe. But such a scenario is increasingly possible in America's contemporary legal climate. It shouldn't be. (If you think I am exaggerating here, ask me about the lady in Arizona who was ticketed for giving away bottled water).
-The law is hard on big businesses that have great influence on our economy. Would it be nice for these businesses to provide health insurance benefits for their employees? Of course. But penalizing them with crippling taxes for not doing so will just provide them with incentives to locate elsewhere, taking their jobs and other types of tax revenues to countries that will appreciate them. Right?
-If the federal government can force me, under threat of financial penalty (call it a "tax" if you must), to buy a product like health insurance, what can't it force me to do? This is my most fundamental concern with the law. The federal government was designed to be one of specific, enumerated powers ONLY. The ACA's passage, and the Supreme Court's upholding of it, are evidence that the prevailing interpretation of those specific powers stretches them beyond recognition.
-The law tramples rights of conscience, in all sorts of ways. Business owners have taken to the courts--with mixed results so far--to protest requirements that they provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion services that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. Now some are also saying that taxpayer dollars will be used to provide abortion coverage in the new exchanges, in contravention of the federal Hyde Amendment.
So are you ready for the REVOLUTIONARY?:
While I think most of us will concede that we must collectively care for the needy, many of us are convinced that federal mandates are not the best way to do that. I believe that we must admit that we have long permitted the federal government to overstep its bounds and take steps to reform it to the blueprint set out in the Constitution. We must insist that the enumerated powers vested in the federal government--its ONLY powers--be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intentions of reserving such matters as providing health care for the poor to the sound discretion of the people and the states.
How might we do that, you ask? One idea that I believe has merit involves calling for a Convention of States (under Article V of the Constitution) for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide more specific limits on the authority of the federal government. To learn more about this plan, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
I found the session informative and helpful, although I still don't pretend to have an understanding of all of the workings of the behemoth legislation. While I don't typically like to discuss issues that I don't thoroughly understand, I am resigned to the fact that holding myself to this principle, in the case of this particular issue, would mean forever dismissing the opportunity of commenting.
And so, with that disclaimer, here are some of my thoughts on the beleaguered legislation.
First, the GOOD:
-It is good, noble, and right that we, as a society, demonstrate a concern for the poor, sick, and elderly among us. Therefore, it is also fitting for us to explore ways of ensuring that those who cannot care for themselves receive the tangible help that they need.
-From what I learned last night, there are elements of the law that make good sense. For instance, it seems wise to offer tax credits for those who are struggling financially, yet take responsibility for their future health care needs by purchasing health insurance. Giving them a tax break to help them pay for their premiums is likely to inure to everyone's benefit by allowing them to obtain preventive care and reducing the incidence of "uncompensated care" (which increases the costs of health care for everyone).
-Building upon the second point, it seems appropriate for the ACA to forbid some of the sharp practices by wealthy insurance companies that devastate individuals and cost taxpayers dearly. As I learned last night, the ACA precludes insurers from dropping an insured's coverage once he or she becomes seriously ill. Apparently companies will sometimes go back and identify a misstatement in the application or loophole in the contract once the insured starts to incur serious expenses. This is unjust and should be stopped.
But there is plenty of BAD in the Affordable Care Act as well:
-The law is over 900 pages. Need I say more? We are an overregulated people already, and legislation that approaches the length of War and Peace should raise serious concerns in anyone who has a genuine desire to know, understand, and abide by the law. In the middle of a hectic day, I am sometimes seized by the fear that some government bureaucrat will come knocking on my door to inform me that in the process of carrying on some industrious activity in good faith, I have violated the fine print of an obscure regulation. Am I neurotic? Maybe. But such a scenario is increasingly possible in America's contemporary legal climate. It shouldn't be. (If you think I am exaggerating here, ask me about the lady in Arizona who was ticketed for giving away bottled water).
-The law is hard on big businesses that have great influence on our economy. Would it be nice for these businesses to provide health insurance benefits for their employees? Of course. But penalizing them with crippling taxes for not doing so will just provide them with incentives to locate elsewhere, taking their jobs and other types of tax revenues to countries that will appreciate them. Right?
-If the federal government can force me, under threat of financial penalty (call it a "tax" if you must), to buy a product like health insurance, what can't it force me to do? This is my most fundamental concern with the law. The federal government was designed to be one of specific, enumerated powers ONLY. The ACA's passage, and the Supreme Court's upholding of it, are evidence that the prevailing interpretation of those specific powers stretches them beyond recognition.
-The law tramples rights of conscience, in all sorts of ways. Business owners have taken to the courts--with mixed results so far--to protest requirements that they provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion services that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. Now some are also saying that taxpayer dollars will be used to provide abortion coverage in the new exchanges, in contravention of the federal Hyde Amendment.
So are you ready for the REVOLUTIONARY?:
While I think most of us will concede that we must collectively care for the needy, many of us are convinced that federal mandates are not the best way to do that. I believe that we must admit that we have long permitted the federal government to overstep its bounds and take steps to reform it to the blueprint set out in the Constitution. We must insist that the enumerated powers vested in the federal government--its ONLY powers--be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intentions of reserving such matters as providing health care for the poor to the sound discretion of the people and the states.
How might we do that, you ask? One idea that I believe has merit involves calling for a Convention of States (under Article V of the Constitution) for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide more specific limits on the authority of the federal government. To learn more about this plan, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)