Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Good or bad, SCHIP usurps states' rights
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Scott Wolk
Wolk, of Roanoke County, is coordinator for the Constitution Party of Southwest Virginia.
Upon first glance at 6th District Rep. Bob Goodlatte's op-ed piece "Putting children first" (Oct. 22), one would be hard pressed to argue his position, whichever side of the aisle you tend to find yourself.
I find the thought repugnant of a child, who has no real choice in the matter, without health care, should the need arise, because his or her parent doesn't have coverage, whatever the case may be. I know of no one who would be OK with it.
Goodlatte brings light to one of the many obstacles that face our legislative process today. He points out that he strongly supports the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I support health care for every American as well, but not at the expense of every other American.
Our government spends a tremendous amount of time on legislative issues that are neither authorized nor favorable. SCHIP is a prime example. Conservative writer Joseph Sobran wrote in his online article "How Tyranny Came To America":
"Constitutional and unconstitutional aren't just simple terms of approval and disapproval. A bad law may be perfectly constitutional. A wise and humane law may be unconstitutional. But what is almost certainly bad is a constant disposition to thwart or disregard the Constitution."
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution cites 18 specific areas that our federal legislature is authorized to govern. Health care is not one of them. Proponents of SCHIP might argue that the Constitution is a living document and we must evolve our reason and method of thinking to include changing circumstances. The fact is, the Constitution is a document that was prepared with the foresight of changing circumstances in times to come. This neither negates nor relinquishes the responsibilities of those elected to adhere to its precepts and instruction, regardless of their feelings on the matter.
Goodlatte's intention, although apparently meant for the common good, fails to address that he and others in support or nonsupport of SCHIP do not have the authority to legislate such a matter on behalf of the American citizens in Congress, period. This is legislation that is left up to respective states and the people of the states. The 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights explicitly dictates this claim for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
So what remains is not whether SCHIP is or is not a good idea; it's the question: Where does the U.S. government get the authority, or precedent, to think that it can control any aspect of health care?
SCHIP, national health care, etc., whether it may or may not be a good idea, is not up for legislative determination in the United States Congress.
What is left, to my dismay, is that proponents would suffice the government take their money through tax, yet would not consider offering charitable contribution to those that provide these services. Hmmm.
