The 5 Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The forefathers of this great country wrote the Constitution of the United States as the basis in which this country should be founded, but were smart enough to realize that what they wrote would need to be adapted as time would pass because nothing is unchangeable and what made sense twenty years ago might not be too wise today. That is the beauty of our Constitution and why it has served as a model for democracies all over the world.

During the last 225 years, there have been many amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution is unchangeable (like the Bible) is outrageous and preposterous, only the Tea Party and extreme libertarians can believe that the law that ruled the nation two centuries ago can be applied today as originally intended.

According to Mitt Romney’s website, he believes that the Constitution’s words “have meaning,” as if the Constitution didn’t mean a thing for the rest of us. As usual, Romney has to appease the extreme right that, having no other alternative, is backing up a Mormon they would not even give the time of day if they had a choice. The Tea Party is supporting Mitt Romney in his candidacy for the Presidency regardless of how much they dislike him because they dislike President Obama even more. But Mitt knows that if there were a White, Evangelical, Right-Wing nut that would decide to run at the last minute, those campaigning and donating money for him would reverse their support in a blink of an eye, for that reason he has no alternative but to repeat like a parrot what the Teapers believe and stand for. That is why Mitt Romney is now implying that the Constitution should be kept as it was written in 1787.

Mitt Romney asserts, “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government.” Where does it say that in the original Constitution? The Constitution clearly defines what the roles of the three branches of government are, including the Legislative Branch. There is no mention whatsoever about “restrains on government” but on Article V, there is definitive assertion about the legality of Amendments to the Constitution, but Teapers don’t like that article very much and I am sure that if they could, they would probably erase it.

Mitt continues to say, “At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.” I am very glad Mitt feels that way, to tell you the truth so do I, why on earth these Right-Wing Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) came up with constitutional rights for corporations, rendering to them the same rights of a person? Can corporations (1) create life (2) donate organs (3) be executed (4) get divorced (5) be unfaithful (6) go to church (7) cry (8) laugh (9) get married (10) die for this country? Yet, corporations for the first time in Global history are considered a person and all thanks to the Right-Wing Justices appointed by G. W. Bush and Reagan before him.

On his website, Mitt promises to nominate more judges like the ones that ignored the Constitution and who are enjoying their appointment for life to such lucrative and influential position, which by the way… where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme and Federal Justices are appointed for life? In Article III, Section 1 it reads: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” It seems that “good behaviour” translates into life but why? I truly believe that we have been fooled into believing that we are stuck with the morons that wear the ropes in the Supreme and Federal Court. We must demand their destitution particularly from the Supreme Court on the grounds of "bad behaviour", borderline treason, having stripped our constitutional rights over the rights of corporations, going against the Constitution. No Judge should be serving for a life-term, not a Supreme or a Federal Justice. We have accepted what a bunch of attorneys have said Article III means, but even the Legal Definition of "good behaviour" does not translates into a life term. This is the definition of “GOOD BEHAVIOUR” according to a Legal Dictionary: "Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety. for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution. 1 Binn. 98, n.; 2 Yeates, 437; 14 Vin. Ab. 21; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. As to what is a breach of good behaviour, see 2 Mart. N. S. 683; Hawk. b. 1, c. 61, s. 6 Chit. Pr. 676. Vide @Surdy of the peace."

We already have five Conservative Supreme Justices; they already hold the majority and we can’t afford more of them. We need to change the length of time a Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court; maybe they should serve for the same length as the president, perhaps 10 years but definitively not for a lifetime. No Judge should serve for a lifetime; no one should possess such power!

Note:  I am using the same spelling as that in our Constitution for the word "behavior."

Let’s play ball!

It is incredible how many people are still protesting against the Health Care Reform Act and carrying big signs denouncing the unconstitutionality or their outrage for this bill.

I can understand up to a point that the people feel upset that they will be forced to get health insurance. What I can’t understand is their outcry that they don’t want government to get involved in their health issues… That outrage of course lasts until they reach their golden years and retire. The sad thing is, these seniors and retirees that are screaming that they don’t want government “making their health care decisions” have Medicare, and God forbid that someone takes that away from them! What do these people think Medicare is? Medicare is what all of us would have been entitled to if it wasn’t for all the morons that were against single payer or public option. The stigma of the government involved in our health issues was greater than the benefits we could have enjoyed.

Since we couldn’t get the public option or single payer because of all the false allegations that the political liars used to instill fear on the elderly and the gullible, we now have to pay for private insurance… because the rights of the health insurance companies were far more important than our own personal interests.  We have the Tea Party and Republicans to thank for that one. The same people that didn’t want to have a single payer or public option and don’t want to be forced to get health insurance claiming it is unconstitutional. Why is health insurance unconstitutional and not, let’s say, automobile insurance? Why is it that health insurance is an evil thing that government shouldn’t mandate or impose on all of us when not having it affects us ALL yet, it is OK to be forced to have auto insurance for every single vehicle we own?  Why is it OK for one type of enforced insurance but not the other?

When a person that doesn’t have health insurance is hospitalized and can't or won't pay the bill, we end up ‘picking up’ that tab. Every year hospitals nationwide ‘lose’ millions of dollars in unpaid balances incurred by uninsured people incapable or unwilling to pay their debt. The reality is that no hospital really loses money, they just increase the price of their services making all of us that have insurance to pay for those that didn’t. And all of us, those that incurred in the bill and those who see their premium increase pay again in the form of taxes, the government assumes a lot of those loses... kind of a bail out for hospitals.

If you have an automobile or motorcycle and you have a traffic accident, chances are that there will be two cars involved.  Usually, the person that hits pay for the repairs or medical needs of the injured through their insurance and their insurance premiums most likely will increase when they renew their policies.  Automobile insurance companies raise the premiums nationwide according to the accident ratio within that city or state.  Most of us hate them, but since it is the law to have it, we conform... Except if you live in New Hampshire where having automobile insurance it's an option, I think I will move there!

It seems that for Americans protecting an object is far more important than protecting themselves.  We hear people say all the time when their vehicles have been stolen things like "thank God I had insurance!"or "I don't worry because I'm insured."  Why don't they think the same way when it comes to their own person, their own bodies?  Once again, an object is far more important than a person.  No wonder they granted "personhood" status to corporations and we, the workers, have become the property of these corporations!

And now, here we are again fighting against the “Obamacare” as it has been "baptized". This bill has been taken to the Supreme Court to deem it unconstitutional.  It is sad that most likely they will win and repeal the law, after all the Supreme Justices enjoy having Public Option until the day they die.

I believe that is a shame. Many people that could be insured with preexisting conditions will  have no insurance and that includes babies and children. These people once again will have no insurance and perhaps due to being uninsured they may lose their lives.  We can place this injustice on those same people that are constantly yelling how precious every life is: the pro-life people. Once again they have proven that the only life they care for are the one before it passes the birth canal, once you take a breath you are on your own!

I suggest that all the judges and politicians that are fighting and claiming Obamacare as unconstitutional to have their insurance revoked. No more government insurance for them since it is so evil. We progressives and liberals are always trying to work for the people and if these people don’t want insurance especially insurance provided by the government, then we should take that burden away from them. The same can be said about all the senior citizens that have fought so vehemently against government subsidized insurance; let’s cancel their Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. What do they think those are, manna?  I am sure they will be thrilled since in their opinion they do not use any government assistance and want government out of their lives, let’s be nice and give them what they want.

Let’s repeal Obamacare but do what I suggest above. All congressmen that are against Obamacare, revoke their insurance. Every citizen that has signed anything against Obamacare, let’s cancel his or her government provided insurance. Let’s start playing their game. Let's begin by automatically canceling health insurance of all the fat cats in Congress that have done nothing but inflict fear in their constituents and of all the seniors that claim that government should stay away from their health insurance.  When they stop getting these benefits, they will be begging for the Single Payer Option, not Obamacare which is the watered down version of what was original intended… Let the games begin!