People aren't paying attention

Dear Editor:

After reading Dave Nemer’s letter [“General welfare in jeopardy," COURIER, Sept. 19, 2009], I arrive at the realization that a lot of the trouble our various governments are currently experiencing result from the fact that way too many people just are not paying attention.

Consider that the Democrat-controlled California legislature has so mismanaged the State of California’s government that they created an unprecedented $25 BILLION budget deficit this year.  Simultaneously, The Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress has rung up a $1.5 TRILLION budget deficit, but undaunted, is, at this moment, trying to ram through the most expensive new entitlement program ever conceived.

Yet, despite all of that demonstrated bungling incompetence, we read letters from people who seem to believe that there is no end to the activities which government should take on. Some people, I guess, are simply impervious to reality.

Now on to some of the specifics. Mr. Nemer takes me to task for spelling Welfare with a capital W. In those instances, I was accurately quoting directly from the original, handwritten Constitution, in which the word is capitalized. (Reference my comment above about paying attention.) Incidentally, if you do not have a copy of the original document you can order one from the National Archives and read it for yourself.

Mr. Nemer further writes, “Mr. Lyon’s main point seems to be that health care reform would violate the Constitution...”   Well...actually...in not one of my earlier letters have I ever mentioned the subject of health care—yet, I do congratulate you, in this one instance, for connecting the dots and arriving at the proper conclusion, which is, that the proposed nationalized health care would be unconstitutional.

Continuing on, Mr. Nemer writes, “This line of reasoning implies that most current functions of government are unconstitutional.”   Once again, I congratulate you for connecting the dots and arriving at the proper conclusion.

Finally, from Mr. Nemer, “...our government has the right, the responsibility, and a clear electoral mandate to implement health care reform.” As to ‘the responsibility,’ well, that’s a matter of personal opinion. ‘A clear electoral mandate’ is actually irrelevant.   ‘...our government has the right’ is the ultimate criterion by which any proposal must be judged. Our federal government has the ‘right’ to do any particular thing only if the Constitution grants it specific authority to do it. In the case of nationalized health care, there is no Constitutional authority.

To anyone dissatisfied with this arrangement who believes that the federal government ought to be doing something which is not authorized in the Constitution, the Constitution contains within itself procedures for amending it, as has been done 27 times so far.

Douglas Lyon
Claremont