Affordable Protection Act Part 2. Implementation and Constitutionality.

       In part one we examined why the Affordable Protection Act is necessary and cost-effective.  Now we will examine how it could roll out, and why it is constitutional.  

       Implementation:  

       This would not require any major preparation, or pre-collection of taxes (which the Affordable Care Act did require), to work.  We simply make a law that every member of the militia, as defined previously, is required to own, and carry, a firearm.  I did not say pistol, and I did not say concealed.  Others may carry a firearm (insurance) on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise ineligible.  

       The legal reason given for the requirement for concealment is to not incite alarm or panic in the public.  If everyone is armed, then the sight of a gun will not incite anything.  (Except Hoplophobes, but we don't ban bridges or clowns just because of a few peoples' neuroses).  In fact seeing a firearm should never incite anything, unless it is pointed at you.  People who panic at the sight of a holstered weapon are the problem, not the person peacefully carrying it.

       If anyone in the militia decided they did not want to carry a firearm, they would not be forced.  But, due to the added strain they would be putting on the system, they would have to pay a penalty.  (Just like the Affordable Care act.) Unlike the Affordable Care Act however, I will allow for those of means, who do not wish to carry a firearm (insurance) to opt out if they can prove they have people in their employ for such a purpose.  (adequate money set aside for healthcare)  

       Constitutionality:

       In their landmark decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty, and in fact the insurance requirement itself, could be construed as a tax.  By that measure it is constitutional.  They are required, it was stated, in cases where there are multiple interpretations of a law, and one of them is constitutional; to use that interpretation in their decision, and disregard any other interpretation.  

       That same rationale would dictate that requiring the purchase, or proof of current ownership, of a firearm, and the penalty for non-compliance; would be a tax, and therefore within the scope of congressional authority to legally require.  

       Please forward this to your representatives in Washington D.C.

The Affordable Protection Act Part 1. History and justification of need.

       I am going to suggest a new law, based on the legal precedent set by the affordable care act.  But first, let's look at how we arrived at the need for each.  The current problems, and the laws allowing them, came about because of the political pull of special interest groups with very deep pockets.  The laws put in place by the politicians representing them allowed for the creation of two classes of people.
       While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not.  I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms.  The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name.  The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
       Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns.  If you are out on parole, for example.  Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example.  But the list is about that short.  Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals).  Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
       Sounds funny?  Allow me to continue.  The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
       Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
       Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right.  Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution.  We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue.  What we don't hear is historic context.  The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
       Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry.  A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence.  They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations.  Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do.  (Go ahead, laugh.  It was meant as a joke)
       Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone.  (emphasis added)

(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.
     

Why we are really shut down.

A recent (cough) debate on facebook sparked this piece.  It followed the opinions of a person, clearly of a liberal bent, and another, decidedly of a conservative one.  It went about like you'd expect.  I threw in a few things too.  Mostly because both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in equal measure.

Let me explain.  The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act.  The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided.  This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative.  It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.

The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home."  This is exactly correct.  Yes, I said it.  We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws.  If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be.  If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again.  To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes.  This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act.  No Gay marriage, etc.  These things are of course, also true.  (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)

I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground.  Which brings me to my point.  The thing I have made the point of my existence actually.  Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt.  Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.

See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican.  From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist.  (bravo, see you at the meetings).  Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican.  Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.

A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place.  They would be fixing the education system.  As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher.  We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.

A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business.  As in they wouldn't care who married whom.  They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing.  And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.

Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys.  Really.  We need better options.

Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act.

       No doubt all of you who read this regularly (Both of you) have been waiting for my snarky, philosophmoric ramblings on the topic.  Today is your lucky day.  See, I can feel my back locking up again and since the muscle relaxer I was prescribed made me break out in hives, I am using the same one Grampa did: Rye whiskey.  (Well, some kind of whiskey).  The two effects this course of treatment have are relaxation, and an even greater degree of apathy about whether you want my opinion, or not.
       I will not go into the politics of this issue.  I don't need to.  The Supreme Court is currently deciding if the individual mandate is within the scope of powers of the Congress, to make law.  The implications of this ruling stand to change more than just the law most of you refer to as "Obamacare".  This decision could knock the legs out of many long standing federal programs.
       The indications are that the votes will be split along party lines.  There are currently five Republican-appointed justices, and four Democrat-appointed ones.  This is what makes me sad, angry, frustrated, and pitchfork-grabby.  If they are deciding a matter of constitutionality, party affiliation should not matter at all.  This is true for all decisions they face, and true regardless of their, or anyone else's party affiliation.  And yet, here we are, staring down a court that, despite being sworn to uphold the Constitution, gives no indication this is even a consideration.
       In short: the two-party system had corrupted the highest court in the land.  That is really all I can say on this without being seen as taking sides.  Although if I were to make a statement on this topic, it would be this:  A federal healthcare program is an all-or-nothing proposition.  What we have is severely "semicolon-ing" (half-a$$-ing) the idea.