Leviathan Unchained

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." -- James Madison


Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Obamacare and the Individual Mandate marks a black day in our history.  The premise of the ruling is that Congress has essentially unlimited authority to levy taxes.  But when does a tax become a fine?  The ruling upholds the idea that Congress can fine you for failing to comply with any action they dictate.

Unfortunately, we started down this path a long time ago when we embraced tax exemptions for "good behavior."  By dressing it up and calling it an exemption (instead of a penalty for everyone else) we swallowed the poisoned pill and made it part of our tax code.

Our Founding Father recognized the threat posed by the power to tax, and placed limits on it to ensure it would be used soley to collect revenue, not to enslave the populace.  Direct taxes had to be uniformly distributed, without picking favorites: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census."

That protection was struck down by the 16th Amendment, and the tax code has been a tool for social engineering and behavior modification ever since.

So now we face a future of fines whenever we fail to submit.  Life, Liberty or Property: Pick two.

To Support and Defend

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent commentary on the Constitution has some people questioning her ability to uphold her oath, and with good reason.  "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." Instead "I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

A quick glance at the South African Constitution highlights some glaring differences from our own Constitution; differences which also highlight Ginsberg's unabashed political leanings.  South Africa guarantees its people food, water, education, housing and healthcare (among other things).  South African politicians are then charted to achieve these goals using their available resources.

The South African Constitution holds to the idea of "positive rights" which the left embraces and which FDR pushed for without our own government.  The key problem of course is that the government itself has nothing which it hasn't first taken from someone else.  In order to guarantee something to someone, you must first be willing to force someone to provide it, without regard for their personal liberty.

Frederic Bastiat succinctly describes the conflict between our Bill of Rights and FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights":

"The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

In fact, in order to enforce any sort of positive rights, you must first strip one group of their rights in order to satisfy another group, thereby failing the test of universality and putting to lie the idea of Equality before the law.  In doing so, the left clearly presupposes that some people are more equal than others.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with an eye towards limiting government's potential for abuse, and by safeguarding Liberty they ensured an abundance of prosperity to their decedents.  If however we choose to sacrifice Liberty in order to gain material security, we will lose both.