The Constitutionality of Universal Healthcare
I read a comment this morning that said constitutionally speaking it would be illegal for the federal government to do anything to make universal healthcare the law of the land. It has been years since I read the United States Constitution and I have to confess that I’m in no mood to read it now. With the rights of the people being trampled by all three branches of the federal government I wonder why people even bother with the constitutionality of things. The Supreme Court says things like torture is okay as long as it’s for gathering information and not as a means of punishment and the best way to combat racism is to stop looking at people’s race. The executive branch signs laws into existence and then signs a signing statement that says that the President isn’t bound to any stinking law, and the Congress refuses to do anything to prevent a rogue President from taking the country further into global isolation with illegal wars, unilateral actions, and declarations of you are either with us or against us.
But one thing I do remember about the United States Constitution is that the authors of this document intended for it to be dynamic and adjustable and flexible with the times. The Constitution has already been adjusted with a number of amendments. It is people who are rigid and inflexible and refuse to adapt to the times. The Constitution has been changed to recognize black people as equals and many components of the American public are still working hard to resist coming to terms with this issue. The Constitution was amended for prohibition. When prohibition went into practice and so many people started breaking the law, the law makers realized that this modification wasn’t what the people wanted and the Constitution was flexible enough to rectify the problem. In essence, the Constitution is self correcting.
Some people are working hard to make an amendment to the United States Constitutional to protect the sanctity of marriage. This law is supposed to make it clear that when it comes to the United States and its territories, marriage is a joining between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an option for same sex couples. No state or municipality in the American union would be able to pass any law that would give homosexuals the opportunity to express their love and appreciation for each other as a marriage. I believe the law would make civil unions an option for same sex couples. But it should be clear that what we have hear is a twenty first century example of people working to establish a separate but equal arrangement to prevent homosexuals from having the same opportunities for marriage as heterosexuals.
Now personally, I fail to see how homosexuals coming together in holy matrimony are a threat to the man and woman who would like to do the same. I have heard people say that two men getting married or two women getting married would cheapen marriage in the eyes of god. I seriously doubt if god would be so petty as to have difficulty telling the difference between the two. This must be one of those instances of god working in mysterious ways because it really is difficult to understand how two people who are trying to express love for each other would be something evil, sinister, and ethically immoral.
People will also say that if we allow homosexuals to marry the next thing you know people will start marrying their dogs. The idiocy of such an unreasonable leap from the circumstance of homosexual marriage to marriage between a human and an animal is truly large and wide. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. I have yet to hear of any state allowing animals to enter into legal contracts. As far as I know homosexuals are still people. I have to admit that it is difficult to see the logic of the suggestion. But nevertheless, somebody feels the idiocy of people trying to marry Fido justifies the necessity to make a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
But, if people truly wanted to protect marriage they would make a constitutional amendment making adultery and divorce crimes against the public. Unfortunately for the people who swear that the sanctity of holy matrimony is their primary concern, it is a seriously fat chance of such a constitutional amendment getting passed. Politicians from the local parents teachers association to the local alderman to the Mayor to the Governor to the congressman to the President have made their infidelity the business of the public. Even some spiritual leaders have difficulty keeping their vows to god when the alter boy bends over to pick up a dropped ethic or two. It is hard to resist when those gowns start to sway so seductively. A snowball would have a better chance surviving in hell.
When we have the will to make a change to our Constitution, we do it no matter how valid it may or may not be. If we feel that we want universal healthcare the fact that it isn’t allowed in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it cannot be allowed constitutionally. The Constitution isn’t so rigid that universal healthcare is impossible to implement. If universal healthcare is truly an unconstitutional concept, and I seriously doubt that validity of this argument, the next amendment to this flexible document that was designed to change and grow and meet the needs of the entire population can be the one clearing the way for its existence. If only people were as flexible.