May 15, 2006

The State of Massachusetts recently became the first State to require its residents to be covered by health insurance. Under this law, all uninsured adults will be compelled to purchase some kind of health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face legal penalties. This buy insurance or else legislation is patterned after the State's auto insurance law that requires all operators of a motor vehicle to be covered by insurance.

Beginning in 2008, residents will be required to provide a detailed overview of their health insurance coverage on their state income tax return. Any one who does not have insurance would lose their personal state tax exemption and be hit with a penalty equal to half of the cheapest policy available in the State. Preliminary estimates put that amount at approximately $1,200.00 per year.

While this legislation is the ultimate wet dream for health insurance companies and big government liberals, it has a major flaw that, in the author's opinion, renders the "buy insurance or else" component of the legislation unconstitutional.

The preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution states:

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights."

Notice the use of the word "natural," as opposed to "constitutional," to describe the rights of the people. The phrase is repeated again in the text of the Constitution:

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

The words "natural, essential and unalienable" are basically interchangeable and refer to the God-given (endowed by their creator) rights of the people. These rights exist independent of government or any written constitution. Thomas Jefferson expressed this principle in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Among the natural rights of the American people is the unlimited right of contract. This means you can choose to enter or not enter into a contract. In order for a contract to be valid, it must be voluntary. In the normal course of life, you cannot be compelled under threat or coercion to enter into a contract with anyone, including government.

This takes us to the Massachusetts health insurance legislation. When you take out an insurance policy you are entering into a contract with the insurance company. The new Massachusetts law, irrespective of how it is couched, is an enter into a contract or else program.

Patterning this legislation after the State's auto insurance law is, in the author's opinion, simply an attempt to deceive the people of Massachusetts concerning their obligations under the law. There is an important distinction between auto and health insurance. Unfortunately, most Americans have not been taught to recognize the difference.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, (and I do not want to get into a discussion over the right to travel vs. a license in this article) the people of Massachusetts are required to be licensed. A license, in pure legal terms, is simply permission from government to do something that would otherwise be illegal. When you ask permission from government to engage in a licensed activity, you must comply with all the conditions imposed by government. Auto insurance is one of those conditions. There is no compelled contract because the individual voluntarily agreed to the insurance requirement as a condition of securing the license.

Massachusetts cannot use the State's auto insurance law as the model for mandatory health insurance because living and breathing in the State is not a government created privilege that requires a license. The right to exist comes from God, not government.

This Massachusetts health insurance law is an assault on the natural rights of the people and an attempt to circumvent the requirement that a contract, absent a license or some privilege granted by government, must be a voluntary act on the part of the parties. Thus, any attempt to compel the people to secure health insurance under threat of fine or penalty is an unconstitutional act on the part of the State of Massachusetts.

(Editor's Note: It would seem obvious that the people of Massachusetts who object to this new tyranny have one more good reason to vote with their feet and simply leave the state. Yes, it is difficult, but much easier than trying to put Pandora back into her box. The state government has many more such nasty things in store for you. Get out now, while you still can!)

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

The Federal Government is using the General Welfare Clause to Steal your Money

Democrats Play the Commerce Clause Card at Robert's Confirmation Hearing

Alito Strikes Out in First at Bat for Team Supreme Court

The Victims of the Public School System Guide to the Bill of Rights

The Forgotten Militia Amendment: The Real Collective Right Amendment

"The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" Misrepresents the Effect of the Sixteenth Amendment

Does the Constitution Grant the Federal Government the Power to Legislate over Land within the Several States?

Even God is Engaged in Interstate Commerce

The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

Are the Constitutions of the Several States Unconstitutional?

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade