If you follow politics closely, you'll often times hear politicians talk about the need to have a "strong national defense." But what does that actually mean? Does the word "defense" actually mean what most politicians claim it means? To get an idea of what the word "defense" actually means, I think it's important to look up the dictionary definition of the word. The meaning of the word "defense" in the dictionary is "resistance against attack, protection." Given that definition of the word, it's hard to argue against having a strong national defense. We need to have strong defense capabilities in order to prevent another country or a certain group of people from attacking us.
In my view, one of the things we need to do to have a strong national defense is to secure our borders. Many of the 9-11 hijackers were in our country illegally, which demonstrates the need to seal our borders to stop people from coming here who wish to do us harm. We also need to take a closer look at our VISA system, and make sure that we deport anyone who overstays their VISA. We need to have a strong military that we use to defend our borders and coastlines here at home. Putting our military along our borders would stop illegal immigration cold, and having a strong military is a great deterrent against other countries that wish to attack us. I believe that it's also necessary to oppose large reductions in our nuclear arsenal, as our nuclear weapons also serve as a deterrent against those who wish to harm us. I believe that it's important to invest in a missile defense shield that covers the entire U.S. If we were to focus on creating a missile defense shield that's capable of knocking down a missile that contains a nuclear warhead, we would be able to prevent any kind of nuclear attack on the United States. Iran's nuclear weapon program would no longer be an issue. We would have the means to stop Iran from striking us through our missile defense capabilities.
However, I strongly believe that our government's current national security and foreign policy has very little to do with "national defense," and everything to do with "international offense." We currently have over 900 military bases around the world in over 130 countries, which simply amounts to a massive expense for the United States. American taxpayers are essentially paying for the defense of other countries, when these countries should be responsible for paying for their own defense. Also, today's neo-conservatives are big proponents of the concept of "pre-emptive war." These people believe that it somehow benefits our national security to invade foreign countries. This ideology has been a complete failure in the past, but unfortunately the ideology is still prevalent among members of the Republican Party, and even some members of the Democratic Party. The people who support this philosophy support foreign intervention regardless of the cost. They don't look at the fact that the Iraq War cost our country over two trillion dollars, putting us further into debt. Former neo-conservative Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney famously said that "deficits don't matter." Cheney's view was that it was necessary for our country to spend trillions of dollars on foreign wars on the backs of American taxpayers, and the amount of money added to the debt "simply doesn't matter." Cheney believed that the invasion of foreign countries was necessary at all costs, because it was necessary as a matter of "national security." But is it really necessary?
My view is that these foreign interventions have made our country far less safe, not more safe. The country of Iraq is actually less stable than it was before, and Christians are also being persecuted at a much higher rate than they were before. Iraq has become a safe haven for radical Islamists who seek to cause terror and persecute Christians. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but he was a secular leader who didn't tolerate these Muslim extremists. He would often times execute the radical Islamists who seeked to implement Sharia Law in Iraq. Now, the country of Iraq is more friendly to terrorists than it was before, and the United States is less safe because of it. The result of our two trillion dollar war with Iraq is simply that we added two trillion more dollars to our national debt, got over 4,000 of our soldiers killed, and created a new Iraq that tolerates radical Islamists and persecution of Christians. I strongly believe that our foreign intervention makes us far less safe, and we need to quickly get back to a policy of having a strong national defense, and put an end to international offense.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Refuting the Left Wing Talking Points on the Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether the individual mandate in President Obama's healthcare law is Constitutional sometime next week. I've been predicting for a long time that the Supreme Court will at least overturn the individual mandate, and possibly the entire law. It's possible that they could still vote to uphold the mandate, but not very likely. Even many of the left wing talking heads on television and the print media have sounded the alarm recently on the increasing probability that the Supreme Court will at least declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. In my first blog post today, I'm going to address some of the claims being made by the left regarding the individual mandate and the members of the Supreme Court.
Many on the left are claiming that if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, it will be an example of judicial activism. They basically seem to be saying that the courts should give deference to Congress and allow them to pass any law they want to pass. They seem to be saying that that the Supreme Court has historically allowed Congress to write laws without any kind of judicial review. The truth is that there have been over 150 Congressional laws that have been struck down by the Supreme Court in it's history. These laws have been struck down by liberal courts as well as conservative ones. The concept of judicial review has been established for quite some time, and the Supreme Court striking down Congressional laws has never been a rare occurrence. If the individual mandate in Obamacare goes down, (or if the entire law goes down) it will simply be one more law in a very long list of Congressional laws that have been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Another claim made by the left is that if the Supreme Court votes to strike down the individual mandate, they will be breaking over 150 years of commerce clause precedent. This is simply false as well, because there is no precedent for this particular case. All of the other commerce clause cases at least involved some kind of activity, while this particular case is an example of the government trying to force people to engage in an activity. For example, the left often points to the case of Gonzalez vs. Raich as a precedent which shows that Congress has the authority to pass a law which contains an individual mandate for health insurance. However, in this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to criminalize marijuana even where states approve it's use for medical purposes. I disagree with the Supreme Court's opinion in this particular case, as I don't believe that the commerce clause allows Congress to prohibit marijuana use within a particular state. However, even this case involved some type of activity, as growing and using marijuana is an example of activity. That's a very clear difference from the individual mandate, which is a clear example of Congress forcing people to engage in an activity. Thus, the Gonzalez vs. Raich case is not a precedent that the Supreme Court should look to when deciding whether the individual mandate is Constitutional.
Lastly, I'd also like to point out that there have been at least two recent cases where the Supreme Court put limits on what Congress can do under the commerce clause. The first case is a case from 1995 called United States vs. Lopez. In this particular case, Congress struck down a law passed in 1990 called The Gun Free School Zone Act. They ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to ban guns within a specific school. They ruled that a law banning guns within a specific school does not relate to "regulating commerce among the states." They realized that this particular law simply regulated a local activity, not "commerce among the states." The second recent case in which the Supreme Court placed limits on what Congress can do under the commerce clause is United States vs. Morrison, which was decided in the year 2000. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional because they exceeded Congressional power under the commerce clause. The part of the law that was struck down was a provision that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. As in the Lopez case, the Supreme Court ruled that this was simply a local activity which was not an example of "regulating commerce among the states."
In conclusion, it's quite clear that the left wing talking points on this particular issue are not based in reality.
Many on the left are claiming that if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, it will be an example of judicial activism. They basically seem to be saying that the courts should give deference to Congress and allow them to pass any law they want to pass. They seem to be saying that that the Supreme Court has historically allowed Congress to write laws without any kind of judicial review. The truth is that there have been over 150 Congressional laws that have been struck down by the Supreme Court in it's history. These laws have been struck down by liberal courts as well as conservative ones. The concept of judicial review has been established for quite some time, and the Supreme Court striking down Congressional laws has never been a rare occurrence. If the individual mandate in Obamacare goes down, (or if the entire law goes down) it will simply be one more law in a very long list of Congressional laws that have been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Another claim made by the left is that if the Supreme Court votes to strike down the individual mandate, they will be breaking over 150 years of commerce clause precedent. This is simply false as well, because there is no precedent for this particular case. All of the other commerce clause cases at least involved some kind of activity, while this particular case is an example of the government trying to force people to engage in an activity. For example, the left often points to the case of Gonzalez vs. Raich as a precedent which shows that Congress has the authority to pass a law which contains an individual mandate for health insurance. However, in this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to criminalize marijuana even where states approve it's use for medical purposes. I disagree with the Supreme Court's opinion in this particular case, as I don't believe that the commerce clause allows Congress to prohibit marijuana use within a particular state. However, even this case involved some type of activity, as growing and using marijuana is an example of activity. That's a very clear difference from the individual mandate, which is a clear example of Congress forcing people to engage in an activity. Thus, the Gonzalez vs. Raich case is not a precedent that the Supreme Court should look to when deciding whether the individual mandate is Constitutional.
Lastly, I'd also like to point out that there have been at least two recent cases where the Supreme Court put limits on what Congress can do under the commerce clause. The first case is a case from 1995 called United States vs. Lopez. In this particular case, Congress struck down a law passed in 1990 called The Gun Free School Zone Act. They ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to ban guns within a specific school. They ruled that a law banning guns within a specific school does not relate to "regulating commerce among the states." They realized that this particular law simply regulated a local activity, not "commerce among the states." The second recent case in which the Supreme Court placed limits on what Congress can do under the commerce clause is United States vs. Morrison, which was decided in the year 2000. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional because they exceeded Congressional power under the commerce clause. The part of the law that was struck down was a provision that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. As in the Lopez case, the Supreme Court ruled that this was simply a local activity which was not an example of "regulating commerce among the states."
In conclusion, it's quite clear that the left wing talking points on this particular issue are not based in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)