THE COLONISTS DID NOT ACCEPT A “COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST”
by KrisAnne Hall, ©2013, blogging at KrisAnneHall
(Apr. 3, 2013) — Thomas Paine wrote on December 23, 1776, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” Our founders stood against taxes and government mandated purchases. The colonists demanded that the British Government recognize that their Constitutions did not authorize this type of government control. As a result, the British Government repealed several laws, to include the Stamp Act. This might be a happy ending except the government was not willing to let go of this power; they were simply appeasing the people. The government did recognize the Constitution did not authorize their exercise of power, so they remedied that “oversight” by passing a law called the Declaratory Act.
The Declaratory Act was a legislative act that declared the government “has, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” In addition to expanding the powers of the government, this act stated that all “resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations” that even questioned the government’s authority are “declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” The government now only needed to prove that the each law was “fit for the good of the empire” to justify its mandates. Thomas Paine and his fellow countrymen recognized that when the government declares for itself unlimited power, there is no limit on the intrusion into and control over the lives of the citizenry.
In the NEW DECLARATORY ACT, Obamacare, the government has declared that they have a “compelling governmental interest” in every aspect of our daily lives, literally a power to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” The original argument against Obamacare was that if the government can force us to purchase healthcare, they can force us to purchase anything. This objection remains true. The mandate of one purchase establishes the precedent of future mandates. To argue otherwise is a denial of the very principles upon which our government has come to operate. Unwelcomed intrusion into our lives and the lack of control over our own decisions will only increase as Obamacare and its underlying philosophy fundamentally transforms the landscape of liberty.
CVS, a major retail chain, recently told its employees that because of the new Obamacare costs, they must now “reveal their height, weight, body fat percentage and other personal information for health insurance purposes.” CVS feels it must “incentivize healthy living” to justify providing healthcare to that employee. Make no mistake, this is the very thought process our government will adopt to justify its intrusion into your life. The Supreme Court has determined the only criteria needed to justify the government regulating any aspect of your life is proof of a “compelling governmental interest,” which does not sound much different than the British standard of “fit for the good of the empire.” Now that the Supreme Court has declared the mandate to purchase healthcare is a compelling governmental interest, the government will have a compelling governmental interest in promoting “healthy living.” Within that compelling governmental interest will be the government’s right to determine how “healthy living” is defined and what the recipients of its healthcare must do to ensure compliance with the government’s standards of “healthy living.” These standards are already being pushed forward.
Just last year, the White House, through its “healthy living” incentives, endorsed by Michelle Obama, pressured Mc Donald’s into redesigning its children’s Happy Meals, forcing them to provide fruit in addition to fries, whether the parents wanted them or not.
A compelling governmental interest currently justifies the government in enforcing Food Safety Modernization Act that gives the authority to regulate roadside produce markets and opens the door for the government to regulate your home garden. The FDA is currently employing SWAT teams to raid small farms and markets to seize raw milk and cheese because THEY have determined them to be contrary to “healthy living” and therefore have “a public health duty” to confiscate them. (Is this the “army” Thomas Paine was referring to?)
Let us not forget NY Mayor Bloomberg’s attack on “sugary drinks” and cigarettes, citing “healthy living” and even death prevention as the motivation to control people in their consumption of these items.
Recently the Center for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report that parents who feed their children solid food before the age of 4 months are jeopardizing their child’s health. In a clear declaration that the government knows more about a child than its mother, the CDC condemns ignorant and penny-pinching parents for feeding their children solid food before the government has determined them to be old enough to eat it. How long before the government starts mandating baby feeding regimens, authorizing doctors to interrogate parents and requiring them to report parents who dare to feed their child contrary to government regulations?
Acceptance of Obamacare at the State level sends a clear message to Washington, DC that our States will allow the federal government to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” Thomas Paine called that Slavery…we call it a compelling governmental interest. Will we accept servitude in exchange for free stuff? Or will we defend Liberty and refuse to comply with these unlawful and unconstitutional mandates? The answer to these questions will determine what kind of country future generations will inherit.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.