Pelosi's Healthcare bill: an unprecedented attack on personal freedom

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

Supporters of healthcare reform claim it's about accessible and low-cost health coverage for Americans. If that were true, they'd reject Nancy Pelosi's bill, HR 3962. Usually, critics write about the economic reasons. But there's another huge problem . . .

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi's bill.

Here's what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it's also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That's not interstate commerce... unless the state line cuts through a McDonald's counter. Congress can't order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that's outside of the government's lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment's requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom -- and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce -- it's apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

An example of this is the unprecedented, totalitarian attempt to force people to acquire government-approved insurance or face tax penalties. If Congress can force us to buy a particular grade of insurance, can it also force us to subscribe to "approved" newspapers?

The Supreme Court has ruled in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) that Congress can't use the tax code to regulate behavior it doesn't otherwise have power to regulate.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Morrison (2000) and even Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Court decreed that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate activity that is NOT economic -- such as NOT buying, NOT producing, or NOT making something. NOT buying insurance can't be buying or making something.

That means, if you want to pay for this fancy plan, you'll have to steal the money the old-fashioned way -- a tax increase. You might want to review the matter in this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

You swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution. Please honor that oath. I insist that you stand up on behalf of liberty and oppose this bill.

END LETTER

You can send your message here.

And then share this message with friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/pelosi-s-healthcare-bill-an-unprecedented-attack-on-personal-freedom

You can also keep up with DownsizeDC.org on Twitter and Facebook, where we provide links to news and commentary relevant to our campaigns plus additional interesting odds and ends.

You can follow us on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

And on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/DownsizeDCorg/92777977517

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

The reason "the rest of us" aren't free

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3361

Excerpt:

I've seen it in Mexican restaurants in Chicago.

Boys and girls of preteen or early teen years taking orders and working the cash register in the evening.

I had no doubt they were the children of the owners. I don't know if there was an "offspring in a family-owned business exemption" to child labor laws. Even if there wasn't, no one seemed interested in cracking down on such places.

Maybe regulation enforcers just look the other way when it comes to family operations, and they should. But the double standard is maddening. The injustice is that the labor market has cut off other children who are willing to work. There should be freedom for immigrant family businesses, but why isn't there freedom for the rest of us?

In Praise of Alternative Media

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer - In Praise of Alternative Media Excerpt:

"I can work out, clean the house, or perform menial tasks while listening to podcasts. With a sitcom, I'm compelled to sit and watch. I may laugh a lot - and laughter is good and healthy - but I won't be smarter or more satisfied with life when the show is over. My mind would not have been expanded by someone with information, ideas, or perspectives that challenge my own beliefs.

I listen to alternative media not because I believe people with alternative theories and worldviews are always correct. I listen to see whether what they have to say makes sense."

Why is the U.S. so bad at government?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The conclusion that must be reached is that in most if not all cases, private agreements are better than government policy because in the private sector the person who is being served, and the customer whose demands must be met, will more often than not be the one and same person. Even in other developed countries, where government seems to work better, they would still be better off with less of it.

But this doesn't answer our initial problem: why is American government worse?

Copenhagen Treaty: Will the U.S. cede sovereignty?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/copenhagen-treaty-will-the-u-s-cede-sovereignty

We've received numerous requests to stop President Obama from signing a climate change treaty in Copenhagen this December. Many of these requests were inspired by a presentation given by Christopher Monckton at the Minnesota Free Market Institute on October 14.

Monckton says he has read the treaty, believes Obama is sure to sign it, and that it would cede the sovereignty of the U.S. to a world government. (For a video of his remarks on the treaty, go here. To see his full 95-minute presentation that challenges the global warming theory, go here.)

We have yet to see any kind of crisis successfully mitigated through greater coercion, centralization, and bureaucracy. Whether or not one agrees that there is man-made climate change, Monckton's allegations are pretty scary. Anthony Watts provides more scary stuff by providing extensive passages from the treaty.

But there's no need to panic . . .

• The treaty Monckton refers to is a "Framework Convention On Climate Change" or "revised negotiating text." That is, it's a proposal, not a finalized treaty. You can read it yourself here.
• The Financial Times reports that the United Nation's top climate official doesn't believe a treaty will be signed in Copenhagen. What is hoped for is a "political framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions" with details to be supplied later.
• As Pat Buchanan notes, scientific studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that global warming isn't happening. This is building doubt among the people and causing the climate-change lobby to change tactics.

The most important reason not to panic is that there's something more urgent than Copenhagen. It's the Cap & Trade bill which has passed the House and is before the Senate. As the Financial Times states,

[T]he White House will find it difficult to commit to specific [emissions] cuts before the Senate has considered the cap-and-trade bill now before it.

Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, is adamant that Mr Obama will not repeat the mistakes made over the Kyoto protocol, when the Clinton administration signed a deal that didn't have Congressional approval.

Buchanan concludes,

If, however, cap-and-trade, which the Congressional Budget Office says will be another blow to economic growth, can be stopped before the Copenhagen summit in December, the republic may have dodged another bullet.

If Cap & Trade is defeated, the Obama Administration will have little stature when it attends Copenhagen. It knows that if it can't get 51 Senate votes for a domestic Cap & Trade bill, it will never summon the 67 votes needed to pass an even harsher treaty.

So if you're scared by the possibilities of Copenhagen, the best thing to do is tell the Senate to stop Cap & Trade. You can do so here.

More questions for Congress

Two weeks ago, we asked you to write Congress about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs. Some in Congress responded, but none answered our questions.

Even so, we must keep asking such questions. The more we ask, the more nervous Congress will become. Eventually, they will be forced to either answer our questions or admit publicly that they don't care what the Constitution says.

We believe Congress's refusal to answer our questions underscores the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). We urge you to demand that Congress pass this bill.

Since we last resported on the EPA in September, the House has increased the number of co-sponsors from 48 to 52, and the Senate increased its co-sponsor list from 21 to 22.

You can find House co-sponsors of the EPA here.

And co-sponsors of the Senate version are here.

If any of your House or Senate representatives has co-sponsored the bill, send them your congratulations and urge those who haven't to do so.

In my personal comments, I also asked more questions . . .

"Two weeks ago I asked you about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs, and you haven't answered my questions. But the issue is larger than drugs. Congress is considering legislation that affects what food people can grow on their own land. Congress is also considering legislation that can force people to purchase health insurance against their will.

Do people not have a natural right to control their own person and property?

Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations, but I see no provision that empowers Congress to control my life and property directly. Do you think I'm incorrect? Maybe I am. But if so, how?

If Congress presumes to tell us what to do with our own lives, shouldn't it at least cite where it gets the authority to do so?

The Enumerated Powers Act is not a complicated proposal. If you believe the bills you support and sponsor are Constitutional, EPA won't be a problem. That's because all it requires is for Congress to specify the constitutional authority for the laws they pass.

But the longer you dodge these Constitutional questions, and the longer you avoid sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I'll be forced to conclude that you believe most bills you support are unconstitutional."

You can send your message here.

And we encourage you to share this message with friends:http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/more-questions-for-congress

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

The End of the World

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: The End of the World

Shared via AddThis

Give them leverage

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/give-them-leverage

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee set aside Russ Feingold's JUSTICE Act, which would have amended the PATRIOT Act to protect civil liberties. It then replaced Senator Pat Leahy's already weak bill with an even weaker one.

• Several safeguards found in the JUSTICE Act are not in the new bill
• The Committee defeated amendments requiring evidence that targets of business records requests and National Security Letters must have some connection to terrorism or espionage.

But hope is not lost . . .

• The Senate Judiciary's bill (S. 1692) hasn't yet passed the full Senate
• In 2006, almost two-thirds of House Democrats, including now-Speaker Pelosi, voted AGAINST the PATRIOT renewal
• The voters did not punish these Democrats for their votes; in fact, later that year Democrats won control of Congress

The Obama Administration generally wants the continuation of the Bush status quo on civil liberties. We must encourage Congress to listen to the people instead of the President. If House Democrats show some backbone, they could exercise leverage by . . .

• Introducing and passing the JUSTICE Act,
• Adding greater civil liberties protections to any PATRIOT renewal bill, or . . .
• Threatening to do NOTHING and allow three provisions of the PATRIOT Act to expire on December 31

Send your elected representatives a letter demanding that they roll back the Patriot Act.

This is what I said in my personal comments:

I was disappointed with the results of the Senate Judiciary hearings last week. We must have strong civil liberties protections in any PATRIOT Act renewal bill. I hope a better bill is produced on the Senate floor, and encourage the House to pass the JUSTICE Act. If Congress can't provide better safeguards for my civil liberties, please oppose any PATRIOT Act renewal bill and work to repeal the PATRIOT Act outright.

You can send your letter here.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

War on the Cheap

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I]t's easier for the young progressive to rail against "tea-baggers." It's a lot more fun to scream at Republicans in Congress who are obstructing health-care legislation, than it is to get shot at.

They may like Obama compared to the previous guy. That doesn't mean they have confidence in what he's doing in Afghanistan. At least, not enough to risk their own lives.

Don't read this if you don't care about the Constitution

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-the-constitution

Quote of the Day: "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." -- DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

Subject: Drugs and the Constitution

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn't mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That's because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today's message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It's an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We've changed the message to Congress for our "Help End the Mexican Civil War" campaign. For today's action item it reads . . .

"You've sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn't we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response."

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we'd like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the "Enumerated Powers Act."

Remember, the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post.

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Whose Body Is It?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whose-body-is-it

We received some negative feedback to our most recent Drug War Dispatch.

Yet, no one would admit that the Drug War is successful. No one claimed the Drug War has lowered drug availablility, drug use, or drug addiction.

Instead, what the critics fear is that ending drug prohibition would lead to more use and addiction.

That might happen. It's also possible that drug use would . . .

• Spike briefly but then fall back to historical levels
• Decrease

After all, drugs will be in the pharmacy and off the streets and school grounds. Pushers won't be giving out free samples to hook people.

Overall, we believe any possible increase in self-harm (addiction) will be more than offset by the reduction of harm to the innocent. And there will be more resources to treat addicts who seek help.

In any case, this concern boils down to fearing the consequences of individual freedom.

If we feared individual freedom, DownsizeDC.org might as well close shop.

Individuals should be responsible for their actions. If their actions cause harm, or violate the rights of others, they should be held to account in civil or criminal courts. If their self-harm, such as addiction, leads them to commit crimes, acts of negligence, or to break contracts, they should likewise be held accountable.

If there are public-nuisance problems associated with drug use or other activities, they could be addressed at the state or local levels.

But when government tries to prevent negative outcomes by restricting freedom, what we get is more negative outcomes, not fewer. The Drug War epitomizes this reality.

The purpose of our campaigns is to leave each individual with more resources, more discretion, and more control over his or her life. We believe greater individual freedom will lead not only to greater human progress, but is inherently more just.

For instance, we believe it is unjust for the government to deny a person the right to make decisions regarding his or her own health. This includes the choice of the medical professionals he or she chooses, the types of treatments and medications he or she chooses, and the prices he or she is willing to pay.

It would be unjust for the government to prohibit a certain treatment you want, or to force you to pay for an insurance plan you don't want. This is why we demand consumer-controlled health care.

Your body belongs to you. It doesn't belong to your doctor, or an insurance company, or the government.

Even if you make bad decisions with it, your body still belongs to you.

Even if lots of people make bad decisions, such as taking up smoking, their bodies belong to themselves. They don't "owe" the government longer life or greater productivity from not smoking.

Likewise, it is not the government's business to prohibit the food you want to eat, the beverages you choose to drink, or what drugs you might want to take. This is important . . .

• Some now-illegal drugs, and not just marijuana, may provide relief for pain or psychiatric disorders.
• Since the drugs are illegal NO ONE can benefit from these potential uses
• And there is no legal recourse for the victims of tainted, impure, black-market doses

If the drugs were legal, doctors, pharmacists and consenting patients would be free to experiment with them in a controlled way. Respected businesses would develop consistent batches, and fewer people (the very people drug prohibition claims to help!) would be harmed by impure, black-market substances.

There simply is NO line that can be drawn between health freedom and drug freedom. The federal government has no authority over our bodies. We should be more concerned about those who are victimized by the loss of freedom than with those who choose to abuse themselves.

A Proposal

If your religion (that is, your belief system, whatever it is, that you would want everyone else to have) can't flourish in an anarchic society (that is, a society without other humans forcing you into doing things), then 1) Your religion is fake; 2) Your religion, even if it's the true one, is malevolent; or 3) YOU are malevolent. There may be other options. I'm just throwing this out there. Comments?

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?"

at DownsizeDC.org: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-quot-presumed-innocent-quot

Complete Freedom

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - Complete Freedom

Shared via AddThis

Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/is-drug-prohibition-worth-it

Quote of the Day: "Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs, but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs." -- William F. Buckley

Subject: Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

There have been positive signs that America is reconsidering some aspects of drug prohibition.

• In February, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Administration would stop medical marijuana raids in states where it's legal
• In May, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case arguing that California's medical marijuana law was in conflict with federal law
• The Obama Administration did not object when Mexico liberalized its drug possession law last month

But as America takes baby steps toward Drug War reform, statesmen south of the border are suggesting something bolder.

• Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is proposing an end to prohibition
• Three other Latin American ex-Presidents have called on the nations of the hemisphere to rethink prohibition

This week, the Global Public Policy Forum on the U.S. War on Drugs was held on the front lines of the Drug War, in the border cities of El Paso and Juarez. The Forum was organized by the University of Texas-El Paso, but the idea originated with the El Paso City Council. The Council also unanimously called for "an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics" (although that resolution was vetoed by the mayor under the threat of losing federal funds).

Regrettably, Obama's "Border Czar" and "Drug Czar" chose not to attend.

But we agree with the El Paso City Council.

• Drug prohibition breeds corruption. 80 law enforcement officials have been convicted of drug-related corruption on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006.
• Drug probition breeds violence, endangering the innocent. Violence related to drug trafficking is spreading to new areas such as British Columbia
• Drug prohibition is killing U.S. soliders in Afghanistan. The Taliban is being funded by drug profits, and the war is now less about ideology and more about drug profits

Indeed, prohibition can cause the retail price of drugs to be as much as 25 times higher than the production costs. Even if 75% of drug shipments were intercepted, the trade would still be profitable for drug lords.

Today, only a fraction of drug shipments are intercepted. This means the only way to "win" the War on Drugs is to lose the Bill of Rights and our way of life by substantially increasing arbitrary searches and seizures at home, and employing a much larger military as a narcotics police force across the globe.

In order to accomplish . . . what, exactly?

• Illicit drug-related deaths are one-fifth the rate of alcohol deaths and less than one-twenty-fiftth of tobacco-related deaths
• Three-fourths of all illicit drug use is marijuana use, and marijuana accounts for 0% of the deaths
• Most of the other illicit drug use is the recreational use of legal prescription drugs
• Just 0.7% of the population over 12 used cocaine in the past month, and 0.4% used hallucinogens. One in a thousand used heroin.
• According LEAP, in 2006 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs, the same as in 1970 when the War on Drugs began, and the same as in 1914 when the first federal drug laws were passed.

Drug prohibition costs hundreds of billions in both direct costs and opportunity costs such as the lost wages of the imprisoned. It endangers the lives of innocents caught in turf wars. It promotes chaos and instability in much of the world -- and all of this in a futile attempt to save a tiny fraction of the population from themselves.

But if we lifted the prohibition on drugs . . .

• Drug prices would fall to a fraction of what they are now, meaning hopeless addicts would be less likely to rob you to pay for their fix
• The Taliban would lose their revenue stream
• We would have safer streets in America and much of the world

Please tell Congress to end the chaos in Mexico, in Afghanistan, and on our streets. Tell them to end drug prohibition. In your personal comments, explain how prohibition has created such huge profit margins that the government can't stop the flow no matter how hard it tries. You can send your comments here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Creditism and Savingism

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: Creditism and Savingism

Shared via AddThis