by Wayne J. Barbarek
Although there may be problems, as in any industry, I cannot keep from wondering to what, or which, “system” everyone is referring.
There is all this talk of the “National” health care system; however, I fail to find where health care is a “national” object. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution suggesting it is among the certain enumerated objects of the federal government, with the whole works of the Convention at Philadelphia making it more than obvious that it cannot be.
So, how can there be a “national” system for something that is unquestionably not among the certain enumerated objects that are delegated to the federal government?
What is plain, though, rather than there being any kind of “national” system, there are certainly individual separate systems belonging exclusively to the several States’ individual systems that the States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to establish or not establish, and to regulate or not regulate, as they see fit. Or, as they decide is appropriate for their individual and separate circumstances and interests.
What is also plain is that, no matter the alleged good intentions, good faith or urgency for a needed plan, and no matter the degree of passion or how great the numbers in its favor, until which time the necessary additional powers are constitutionally granted to the Federal Government, this remains their guaranteed right, individually and collectively within their separate societies made plain by the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of these united states.
Specifically, the Federal government has utterly no direct authority or jurisdiction whatsoever extending to those objects belonging exclusively to this Union’s member States any more than it has authority extending into any State in Europe; and, whether or not anyone agrees, is irrelevant, for the plain truth is that Health Care, its industries, institutions, businesses, professions, education, licensing, wages, et cetera; are all among those objects belonging exclusively to the several States.
Not only does the authority of the Federal government not extend to such objects plainly belonging exclusively with the States, the undeniable fact still remains that the fundamental purpose of Union and its Federal government is not to be the source and facilitator of interferences and aggressions against them.
But instead, for the purpose of preserving them as separate independent sovereign societies; and, in so doing, meant to protect and preserve their Rights as the true sovereigns to decide separately and independently for themselves how the considerable remaining powers meant to be left with them shall be, or shall not be, exercised.
In other words, it is the absolute Right of the People of each State, independently of one another, to freely choose how they want to govern their separate society, to wit, how liberal and generous or how conservative and frugal it wants to be without interferences and impositions from other member States or the Federal government.
And, in exercising those Rights of Freedom and Liberty, no State has a right, above all the Federal government, to judge and impose their will upon another just because that smaller society is, in their meager opinion, making inappropriate laws, not making desired laws or because it has customs, morals, habits or interests that are contrary to what they think or believe is appropriate and conducive to being an American State, even though its laws, customs, morals, habits and interests are not contrary to the Constitution.
So, what does this mean and how does it all add up as it pertains to the President and the controlling faction with which he is aligned?
As a Union meant to be of Laws derived from “true” construction and not of Men derived from forced construction, and as servants that are obligated by their required oaths to support the constitution of these united states, they have utterly no authority whatsoever to judge that which plainly belongs exclusively with the individual States; nor do they have any authority whatsoever discussing, above all, proposing or promising to establish a National system, reform the several State systems made under their individual authorities or make health care a fundamental right using ordinary acts of legislation.
And, by arrogantly pursuing their current course, they make plain their intent to pervert the Constitution (according to the framers, an act tantamount to treason against these united states) and commit lawless aggressions against the States in utter defiance of their oaths and the Constitution.
In doing so, they are lawlessly encroaching upon and committing direct interferences into jurisdictions, authorities and objects belonging exclusively with the States by exploiting a temporary exigency to better excite the emotions and passions of the People so as to facilitate and hatch there repugnant schemes, perfectly timed so that on the spot, none can be, nor are they permitted to be, immediately refuted.
“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (Hamilton, fp. 33)
Wayne Barbarek is the author of Documents Illustrative V1.0c a searchable database product containing the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia and the Federalist Papers, which his company publishes and can be downloaded at http://www.documentsillustrative.com “helping to make it easier for today’s citizens to do that for which the original legislators preserved the Journals: â€œcontradict false statements propagated about the Constitution.”