What If Healthcare Reform Opposition Tactics Were Used on the Bill of Rights?

Format for printing
Submitted by Captin Sarcastic on Tue, 2009-09-08 16:36.

I keep getting email messages, and Facebook comments about healthcare reform, and what’s wrong with the current bills in Congress. I happen to think there are a number of things wrong with the bills, but oddly, the specific points of my apprehension are rarely mirrored in the opposition emails I receive. Instead, I get a lot of wholly fabricated assertions, and what I can only assume are either intentionally incorrect interpretations of the bill, or interpretations made by people to whom a sack of what hammers would be their intellectual superior.

I decided to have a little fun with intentional misrepresentations and tried to imagine what these same people might have done with the Bill of Rights, if they were around to mangle it.

If Republican healthcare reform opponents interpreted the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution…

Amendment I

Congress will not respect religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press.

Amendment II

in order to own a gun, you must be a part of a militia regulated by the federal government.

Amendment III

Soldiers are going to be forced to sleep outside.

Amendment IV

Government can seize your property.

Amendment V

Soldiers will be denied due process and can be held or executed by the government without trial.

Amendment VI

The government will hurry convictions of people accused of crimes without regard for guilt or innocence.

Amendment VII

Poor victims will not have access to jury trials.

Amendment VIII

Torturing and agonizing capital punishment will be regulated for uniformity.

Amendment IX

Denial of rights not specified in the Bill of Rights will be accomplished through legislation when and how the government decides.

Amendment X

People’s right are the last priority, after the federal government and the state governments.

Captin Sarcastic's blog »

Mocking rarely helps

#7480 On Wed, 2009 09 09 01:23 N Whittemore said,

Granted, you call yourself Captain Sarcastic, nevertheless I think it misses the point when someone resorts to mocking the opposing perspective. Worse, it makes it appear you have no real position and are deflecting attention away from that fact.
First, the bill of rights is hardly a 1018 page bill.
Second, I thought it interesting that you bring up the first amendment when most people misinterpret it as the separation of church and state (which is not what is stated) and often use it as a vehicle in their disrespect of religion.
Third, there ARE those liberals that think the second amendment only applies to those that are part of a militia.
Fourth, soldiers may have been forced to sleep outside if the only other place for them to sleep while marching (in the 1800's) is a house where they are not welcome.
Fifth, government has seized property. Google "eminent domain abuse."
Sixth, there are many rights that are already denied through other legislation, many are denied rights to do as they wish on their own land due to land usage laws and some are allowed to marry whomever they choose (not talking about incest here).
Seventh, Abraham Lincoln in the guise of protecting some people's rights violated the rights of many states, and their citizens. (a quick examination of some of his writings will reveal he really wasn't too interested in freeing slaves, it just gave him the moral footing he needed)
See, the weird thing is much of what you wrote has happened and is interpreted that way typically by those that would choose to ignore the Constitution, the limit of governmental powers, and the rights granted to citizens of the United States.
Doesn't seem too funny.

login or register to post comments

How does the First

#7481 On Wed, 2009 09 09 04:11 thesilentconsensus said,

Amendment not mean Church-State separation?

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

priests are not prohibited from public office

#7484 On Wed, 2009 09 09 08:29 adam ricketson said,

Some countries (perhaps France and Turkey) go to great lengths to fully separate church and state--even barring public officials from wearing clothing or jewelry that indicates their religion.

We don't do that.

login or register to post comments

Sure,

#7490 On Wed, 2009 09 09 15:32 thesilentconsensus said,

we also have the No Religious Test Clause in Article VI, which supports what you are saying. Big difference though between individual behavior of elected officials and policy

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Extra-Constitutional

#7489 On Wed, 2009 09 09 10:46 Captin Sarcastic said,

The intent of the First Amendment as the court views it today is based as much on the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church as it is on the text of the amendment itself. It is in this letter that the phrase "wall of separation" appears. Because of this, some people feel that the Constitution makes no such statement, and there is no "wall of separation". This argument is often used by people who feel that government can be a completely religious body, but it only prohibited from passing laws establishing a state religion.

You need a "wall of separation" argument to prohibit forced prayer in schools, because no law respecting religion is passed when school's simply have mandatory prayers, even if they are denominationally specific.

All I can say is thank God for TJ's explanation of the intent of the 1st Amendment.

login or register to post comments

You're right, but it was no accident

#7487 On Wed, 2009 09 09 10:35 Captin Sarcastic said,

I tried to actually misinterpret the meaning of the amendments on the whole, but include kernals of truth, or just find the most negative actual truth of amendment in my fake interpretation. Which is why you found that some of my interpretation actually apply sometimes, but clearly my interpretation is not an accurate representation of the whole of the amendments, and that's the point in my comparison. The 4th is the perfect example, it is protecting citizens rights to their property from the government, in the form of soldiers, from being able to simply commandeer private property. In the absence of willing hosts, of course they would sleep outside, but that's not the point or purpose of the amendment, it is the recognition of private property rights. I simply ignored the protected right and focused on the most negative outcome based on the text.

I am absolutely mocking the people who purport to be interpreting the healthcare bill, and the fact that it is 1000 pages makes no difference, except it provides them cover to make these outrageous claims. It does not mean that the claims themselves are anything but misrepresentations of what the bill really says. If the language of the first amendment were included in a 1000 page bill, and I offered my interpretation, it would only make it easier to sell my interpretation, it would not change the meaning or intent of the original words.

I am not mocking opposition in general, just those people who engage in this particular tactic. I have great respect for those who oppose healthcare reform on principle, and I understand and often agree with the principles applied. But to say that the healthcare bill automatically includes free healthcare for illegal aliens because it says no one can be discriminated against because of "personal characterstics", but this is disingenous because it requires opponents to ignore the fact that the bill explicity says that "Nothing in this title shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

And to arrive at "Death Panels" from an expansion of coverage was just sickening, and deserving of much more than mocking for the fear these idiots caused older Americans.

I welcome honest debate, but I will ridicule and mock those who engage in fake debate, sophistry, lying, and general intellectual dishonesty.

login or register to post comments

My real position

#7488 On Wed, 2009 09 09 10:37 Captin Sarcastic said,

Please, take a look at my previous posts, I believe my positions are clear. This was not a comment on positions, this was a comment on tactics.

login or register to post comments