…but this Congress has us the closest to conflict that this nation has been since the lead up to the Civil War.
Last week, NRO’s The Corner told us about the plan by the House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter to avoid the problems of a recalcitrant Senate in the passing of the Great Health Care Takeover of
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
So, in effect, the House would have the final say on the bill. Brilliant! Only, that isn’t how it works. In fact, it would be unconstitutional. I know that doesn’t trouble Nancy Pelosi too much. I’m sure “Getting rid of that pesky Constitution and its annoying restrictions on government power” is next on her list of things to do, but she is getting the cart before the horse, as anyone who ever read the Constitution knows. If the House could just make changes to any bill that went through the Senate without them having anything to say about it, then there wouldn’t be any point to having a Senate, because all that consideration and debate that occurs there would be for naught. What’s the point in having the greatest deliberative body in the world if you don’t give them their say?
There has been a lot of noise about the House using this “Slaughter Deem” to force the Bill through the House this week. I think that there is a concerted effort to fatigue the American people into accepting this. In an endless stream of speeches since last spring, President Obama has told us that “The time for talk is over; the time for action is now.” over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The message faithful have been inundating us with endless talk about how it is the moral thing to do, while failing to consider that having government do something, in its delightfully inefficient ways, is not the same thing as individuals or smaller voluntary associations doing something. Some of the more deluded ones have tried to tell us that “Jesus would support the health care takeover”. Various Congressmen and Senators have told us how we don’t know what is good for us, but they do, and they’ll give it to us, whether we want it or not. It all amounts to an endless, multi-pronged assault on the American people and their thinking. While change may not be possible, fatigue is, and I believe that is intended. If they burn you out, they don’t have to stop working to give it to us good and hard.
If they do the Slaughter Deem, I can envision several outcomes.
I can envision states looking at this and saying “No. Congress has over stepped its bounds.” Problem is, if the language giving the feds access to our bank account is still in the bill, a challenge from individual states doesn’t prevent the federal government from bending the citizens of those states over and giving them the business anyway.
I can envision court challenges, and perhaps even a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. And therein, my crystal ball gets really murky. I don’t know how that ends, or more importantly, when it ends.
But the more I consider the blatant usurpation of power that this intended bill represents, and what the Slaughter Deem does to the legislative process, the more I think that allowing these people to do such a thing and get away with it will only encourage even more (as if this wouldn’t be enough), and the steady incrementalism we have been suffering for about 80 years, the more I think about this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I know. They are radical words, spoken in radical times.
Kind of like the ones we live in.
But it is still the charter of our freedoms.
If they do this, if they pull the trigger on the Slaughter Deem, and impose the tyranny of mediocrity upon us all, and make us pay for the privilege to destroy private enterprise, and the innovation that only it can bring, if they therefore redefine “equality”, and we, as citizens do not take to the street, causing Congressmen to flee the nation’s capitol in fear for their safety, if the voice of a once free people is not so stirred as to be raised from sea to sea in a resounding “NO!”, then we do not deserve the freedom we still have.
We need to decide who we are as a nation. Do we stand with these people, who gave the world its first free nation, conceived in liberty and a people who made the term “American Exceptionalism” a phrase reviled by those embittered in jealously over a righteous nation that they could never enslave without first subverting?
Or are we the people who cannot do for ourselves? The ones who cannot hope to succeed without the guidance and benevolent assistance of a government ruled by the likes of these?
Constantly reminded by the likes of this that we have no destiny separate of the tentacles of a government that find their way into every aspect of our lives, and that we can take no action without its approval?
Because if you chose the latter, there is no reason not to cut out the middleman and go straight for the real thing: