Congresswoman Absurdly Claims that Lack of Dental Care Constitutes a Denial of Constitutional Rights

Our Constitution guarantees us government subsidized cavity treatment, root canals, and teeth cleaning…At least, that is what Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would have us believe. One would expect her to provide her colleagues with a more reasoned analysis of constitutional law. After all, the congresswoman’s website trumpets her B.A. in Political Science from Yale University—with honors. In addition, she earned her law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. A significant regimen of constitutional law is required to graduate. Yet, instead of defending the Constitution with her extensive legal education, the congresswoman chose to rhetorically desecrate our founding document on the floor of the House of Representatives recently.

During House debate on legislation aiming to repeal the Orwellian named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee argued that such repeal would violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

According to the congresswoman, “The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what HR 2 does… In my own county, Harris County, this bill will allow some 800,000 uninsured…citizens…to be insured... Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law? I know that Mr. Land who suffers from schizophrenia with his family, Miss Betty who had to go to the ER room in Texas because of no insurance…or Mrs. Fields, whose mother couldn’t get dental care…would question why we’re taking away their rights.”

Does the Constitution really guarantee us the right to cavity fillings, root canals, and teeth cleaning? Does the Constitution guarantee us any government health assistance at all? Let's take a brief look at the amendments of the Constitution which Representative Sheila Jackson Lee spoke so passionately about.Rather than follow her lead in taking a few words out of context, take a few moments to review the relevant portions of both amendments.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The concept of "due process of law" encompasses both substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process protects the citizen against government actions that would encroach upon rights guaranteed in the first eight amendments of the Constitution-- such as freedom of religion, speech, the press, and keeping arms-- along with protections against other fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are those rights which government has neither the power to grant nor the power to take away. Neither our founders nor Supreme Court precedent suggests that welfare or government programs constitute "fundamental rights".

Procedural due process ensures that the law will be followed and applied fairly before life (capital punishment), deprivation of liberty (including imprisonment), or property forfeiture results from law enforcement proceedings. In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court extended these procedural "due process" protections to some government actions which deprive an individual citizen of access to a government program--such as jobless benefits, disability benefits, or a public education.

This procedural due process analysis has NEVER been applied to legislation which restricts access to a program to the general population. Rather, procedural due process in regards to government programs involves determinations regarding whether a person meets a guideline requirement for a program. For instance, suppose a person is receiving Social Security Disability Insurance. "Due process" must be followed when the government makes a determination that the recipient no longer meets the guidelines for such assistance.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson's Lee's suggestion that repeal of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” would result in the deprivation of property without due process finds NO support in Supreme Court precedent or in historic constitutional law analysis. This newly established entitlement benefit does not fit the constitutional definition of "property". Therefore, Fifth Amendment "due process" is not required in passing legislation repealing the entitlement.

During the same House session, the congresswoman also proclaimed, “I really want to refer to the 14^thAmendment that allows and guarantees you equal protection under the law. If this bill is repealed…a hemophiliac will probably be questionable because he would have lifetime caps…maybe he would not be guaranteed equal protection of the law…the Constitution needs to be protected …maybe they would not be able to withstand this onslaught of their rights because the Constitution guarantees them equal protection and some who have insurance and some do not are not treated equally.”

Once again, let's consult the Constitution. The relevant portion of Amendment 14 states

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection Clause enshrined in our Constitution the founding principle that "all men are created equal" under the law. The law must be applied equally to each individual regardless of economic class, race, gender, religion, or ethnicity. The congresswoman cannot point to any Supreme Court case which suggests "equal protection under the law" is related to equal consumption of goods or services. Yet, she brazenly stated on the floor of the House that because people are not "treated equally" in insurance coverage, the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is violated. Her views may align with Karl Marx on this matter; but they certainly don't align with our Constitution.

The congresswoman took an oath of office that: “I...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same... So help me God.” Should we give the congresswoman the benefit of the doubt? Is she merely ignorant of the clear meaning of these foundational constitutional protections? Sadly, her legal education suggests a deliberate contortion of the Constitution. If so, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee stands in violation of her oath of office.

Like Esau of the Bible, she chooses to exchange our birthright—the Constitution-- for a cup of porridge. She exchanges our rights of equal protection of the law and due process for government subsidized dental care.

Wisconsin Senate Republicans did not Violate the Open Meetings Law

On March 7, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill reforming the public sector union bargaining process. For weeks, the Senate remained at an impasse on the issue as absent Senate Democrats denied the quorum required to move forward. By redrafting the bill to exclude certain fiscal items, a 2/3 quorum was no longer required to vote on the legislation. The Senate promptly approved the bill 18-1.

After passage of the bill by the Senate, the Joint Committee of Conference then received the bill. This committee’s responsibility is to make changes to similar pieces of legislation passed in both the Senate and House. Once these changes are approved by the Joint Committee of Conference, the legislation is then submitted for approval by the legislative chambers. For a bill to be submitted to the governor for his signature — and thereby enacted into law– the language in the bill passed by the Senate and the House must be identical. In this case, the Joint Committee of Conference approved the language of the bill passed by the Senate verbatim, submitting this to the House for Approval.

Typically, consideration of legislation by this committee for the mark-up process takes weeks. However, the committee completed its work on this public sector union bill just hours after posting notice of its upcoming meeting.

Much criticism has been levied at the Wisconsin Republicans for the actions of the Joint Committee Meeting. In a dramatic outburst, Representative Peter Barca proclaimed, “This is a violation of the Open Meetings Law!” What does the law say? The portion which the Democrats claim is being violated is Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, in particular §19.84 of the statute.

§19.84 (1) Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner:….(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”

At first glance, it appears that due to the lack of a 24 hours notice to the public, the Joint Committee of Conference violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. However, there is much more to this statute. We must also take into consideration §19.87 regarding the notice required by legislative meetings.

§19.87(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

Is there is a rule senate or assembly or joint rule which qualifies for this exception to the general Wisconsin Open Meetings Law notice requirements? To determine this, we simply need to take a look at the Wisconsin rules for the legislature.

Joint Rule 27. Committee hearings open to public. Unless otherwise provided by law, every committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be open to the public. If time permits, advance notice of every regularly scheduled committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be published as provided in joint rule 75.

Since this was not a regularly scheduled meeting, so Joint Rule 75 does not apply. Joint Rule 27 requires only that such a non-regularly scheduled meeting be open to the public, without proscribing a time requirement.

In addition, the Senate Rules clearly agree with this analysis.

Senate Rule 93

(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

Senate Rule 93 (3)

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.

The Senate clerk indeed posted notice of this committee meeting on the legislative bulletin board. The Senate rules require no notice of a committee meeting besides such a posting. This requirement is far less than the 24 hour notice guidelines specified §19.84 (1) of the Open Meetings Law. However, we saw in §19.87(2) of the same statute, that a senate, assembly, or joint rule does in fact trump this much more stringent notice requirement!

Accusations that the Wisconsin Republicans violated this law are incongruent with reality, distort the law, and qualify as demagoguery.

CALLS TO VIOLENCE BY SOME ACTIVISTS ARE REPREHENSIBLE

Demonstrations, rallies, and protests are all valid exercises of our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

In a democratic republic, such political speech must never include violence or threats of violence!

Unfortunately, it appears that some attendees of the upcoming March 10 "Coming Out of the Shadows: Undocumented, Unafraid, Unapologetic" rally in Chicago don't seem to agree with this important principle of our republic.

One planned attendee stated "Its time people to be prepared... let them feel your presence... make random hits back... let them know what its like to live in fear".... "those egyptians used rocks.... molotovs... etc; hit and run... even the watts riots and rodney king riots and the mardi gras gets willd...step it up people take it to em..."

Note the complete absence of criticism of this call to violence from ANY of the more than 1300 attendees of this rally throughout the course of an entire day.

RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

By Joel Griffith

On January 31st, US District Judge Robert Vinson ruled that the health care "reform" act’s insurance purchase mandate is unconstitutional. In fact, due to the lack of a severability clause in the bill, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire bill is "void.”

-

Just hours later, the Obama administration announced that despite the clear ruling, states will not be permitted to halt implementation of the act. In explanation of the Administration’s odd response, Administration officials stated that the ruling "does not in any way fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis."

-

This explanation shows a stunning disregard for the Constitution. First, judicial review of legislation is firmly established under Marbury v. Madison. Since 1803, this case has been the cornerstone for every constitutional challenge to legislative acts. Regardless of whether Judge Vinson’s ruling indeed fails to "fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis", the Administration must respect the judiciary's role in determining the constitutionality of legislation. The appeals process is the proper route by which to challenge the ruling of a court on this matter! Instead, the Administration chose to usurp the authority of the federal courts based on its own interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

-

In addition to obscuring the role of judicial review, the Administration asserts that Judge Vinson's ruling fell outside "traditional Commerce Clause analysis." This accusation blatantly distorts the truth. Let's take a look at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (known as the Commerce Clause) states, "[The United States Congress shall have the power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In short, Judge Vinson ruled that this Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power of mandating that citizens purchase certain goods or services. This legislation, which for the first time includes such a mandate, is what truly falls far outside the mainstream of Commerce Clause analysis.

-

The Administration deliberately chooses to project an altered image of reality.

Politicizing Tragedy

The Left quickly assigned blame for this weekend’s tragic shooting in Arizona to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, conservative talk radio, and Fox News. Left-wing pundits are screaming for an end to the “heated rhetoric” surrounding immigration reform, tax policy, and health policy. According to the Left, this weekend’s mayhem is symbolic of the “culture of violence” the “right” inculcates.

Quite surprising to the Left must be the revelation by a former classmate of Jarod Loughner that he is actually “left-wing” and “quite liberal.” In fact, the would-be assassin’s Youtube page lists several diverse literary influences including George Orwell (socialist), Adolph Hitler (Nazi), Ayn Rand (objectivist), Aldous Huxley (humanist), Karl Marx (Communist), and Lewis Carroll (Christian). This list hardly reads like a library of one steeped in conservative political theory. From the initial evidence gathered, It turns out this killer wasn’t a young man motivated to act out on his bizarre fantasies by conservative thinkers. Rather, this tragedy appears to have been committed by a mentally unstable young man with somewhat Leftist political views juxtaposed with wild conspiracy theories.

Now let’s take a look at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The congresswoman is not the liberal Democrat the media are portraying her to be. In fact, she belongs to the Blue Dog Coalition which seeks to restrain the more radical Leftist elements within the Democratic Party. Congresswoman Gifford’s moderate and conservative stances so enraged the extreme Left, that the Left-wing blog site DailyKos actually insisted a “bullseye” be painted on her district, marking her as an incumbent worthy of defeat in this past Democratic primary. After winning re-election, Rep. Giffords was one of just nineteen Democrat representatives to oppose Pelosi election as minority leader in the House vote earlier this month. Far from a liberal Democrat, Congresswoman is one of the most conservative elected officials in her Democratic Party!

Considering a mentally unstable young man with mostly unknown, but possibly "liberal", views attempted to assassinate a Democrat so conservative that liberal activists attempted to defeat her in the Democratic primary, why are the media so intent on blaming conservative thinkers and speakers for motivating the killer to commit this heinous crime?

According to the Left the “heated rhetoric” must stop because such rhetoric is responsible for this madman’s heinous actions. While the evidence contradicts their analysis of this situation, let’s pause for a moment to reflect on who is actually guilty of morphing rational dialogue into incendiary rhetoric. Consider Keith Olberman’s daily "Worst Person in the World" segment where he launches personal attacks on those who oppose his political agenda. Of course, who can forget how Democratic Representative Alan Grayson shockingly compared his Republican congressional opponent to the Taliban? Grayson even delivered a stunning speech which summarized the Republican health plan for the poor as “die quickly.” How can we ignore the exchange on Journolist where an NPR affiliate producer joked about her fantasy of watching Rush Limbaugh die in torment? Then again, our President recently stated regarding his political opponents, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” How’s that for “violent rhetoric”?

If you actually take a moment to listen to just a few hours of conservative talk radio, read an issue of National Review, or process a few editorials in the Wall Street Journal, you’ll find that the alleged “rhetoric” on the right focuses on policy and constitutional issues. On the other hand, Left-wing blogs, MSNBC commentators, and Leftist speakers on the House floor often personalize their attacks. The harsh reality is that Left often replaces logic with passionate emotion.

In no way am I suggesting any leftist pundits are responsible for the attack. In addition, the information regarding this madman's views and motivation is sparse. However, these pundits should be ashamed for blaming this tragedy on conservative thinkers-- especially when the initial facts suggest this killer's political views were anything but conservative! It's disingenuous and misleading to insist otherwise.

I trust this killer will face the severest of punishments for this crime. He not only committed murder; he also tore the fabric of our republic. Let’s not dampen the exercise of our First Amendment freedom of political discourse in the righteous goal of seeking justice for the victims.

NURSING HOME VOTING HELP: FAILING THE SMELL TEST

Ensuring that every person may exercise his right to vote is a noble government function. Absentee voting enables those with time or geographic limitations to make their voices heard. Here in Illinois, the state provides special early voting procedures in certain assisted living centers. I had the opportunity to observe the early ballot casting in such a facility this past week.

The majority of residents at this particular health facility are incapable of traveling even short distances unaided. Their lives demand constant care and supervision. Many of the residents suffer from dementia or other psychological ailments affecting their daily judgment and social interactions.

Each election, the State of Illinois sets up early voting in the cafeteria here. Election judges arrive, voting booths are set up, and ballots are cast. Our elders should have an opportunity, regardless of physical condition, to engage in our democracy. However, some events this morning truly disturbed me.

In ordinary precincts, the secretary of state provides the poll workers with a list of registered voters in that precinct. Each voter signs next to his name in the registry and is then granted a ballot. At this facility, the election judge encouraged facility workers to gather residents who were not yet present in the cafeteria. Providing assistance to someone lacking mobility is proper; however, in this precinct, the aim seemed to be simply increasing turnout rather than providing necessary assistance. Further observations justify this conclusion.

In the minutes leading up to the official opening, I observed the crowd which gathered. One gentleman in all sincerity informed me his name was Bill…and that he recently “traveled on a flying saucer.” Another woman walked into the cafeteria, loudly stating, “I don’t know how to vote, and I know nothing about Quinn.” Two older men in wheelchairs began antagonizing each other until a resident assistant drew them apart. A lady on the other side of the room began arguing and nearly overturned her table.

As the polling place officially opened, the election workers began calling the residents by name to the front of the room. Many of the residents failed to respond when called; these residents were then “assisted” by the health workers to the registry desk. Here, poll workers guided these barely coherent residents through the process.

Rather than allowing the resident to request assistance in the booth, as state law requires for assistance to be granted, the poll workers often would suggest that the voter obtain assistance. The residents who truly were incapable of acting alone often seemed not to understand they were casting a ballot and could not even clearly request assistance! Even residents who showed no desire to vote where encouraged to take a ballot. One lady insisted she did not wish to cast a ballot. She distinctly inquired, “Are you going to make me vote?” In the end, she too cast a ballot with the help of a nursing home worker inside the voting booth.

Strangely enough, even residents who denied the need for assistance at the ballot box were still repeatedly offered it. When an election judge agreed with a resident that no help was necessary, the facility worker looked incredulously at the judge, saying, “You’re going to let HIM vote without my help?” This pointed protest by the young health worker surprised me as this particular voter seemed exceptionally coherent and emphatic that he could vote unassisted. Another resident who denied he needed help was cajoled into changing his initial response and taking the assistance within the voting booth.

Consider that the majority nursing home workers in Chicago are part of service union organizations which overwhelmingly support Leftist candidates, the intense desire to “help” people cast their ballots becomes much more understandable. These special interests certainly may benefit from “aiding” such people at the ballot box.
When an aid worker departs with a barely cognizant voter to a ballot box, it is nearly impossible to know what is being said—if anything—at that box. A poll watcher, such as myself, must stay five feet away.

By law, the person aiding a voter is supposed to simply read the ballot and then assist the voter in marking the ballot as he makes his choices known. Why should we assume that a person who does not choose to approach the registry desk, cannot provide his full name to the poll worker, and lacks the cognizance to request assistance suddenly gains the capability to understand a ballot when read to him by an assistant at the ballot box? Why should we assume that such an assistant at the ballot box is miraculously capable of discerning this voter’s choices when poll workers are incapable of understanding the voter at the registry table?

I am in no way suggesting that ignorance, mental incapacity, or other handicap should disqualify someone from voting! I’m simply suggesting our voting system is susceptible to fraud when a person who seems to not even want a ballot, who cannot give his name to a poll worker, or who lacks the ability to even ask for assistance is given a ballot and assigned an “assistant” at the booth…an assistant who most likely aligns himself with the Democratic Party’s union interests.

For the sake of election integrity, we must rewrite the laws for voter assistance. A voter’s intent must be clear! The voter must know he is requesting such assistance and we must be able to discern such a request. If we can’t discern the request, how can an assistant in the voting booth discern the voter’s ballot choice?

It doesn’t pass the smell test.