Voting accomplished, conscience muddy

Well, I voted. I braved the rain, the cold slush, and all of everything else today to cast my vote for the person who I feel is less likely to destroy our country in the future. Neither Martha Coakley nor Scott Brown appealed to me as an ideal candidate for a state senator. Joe Kennedy just was never an option for me.

So given the field, Coakley was it. If anything, I hope that replacing a democrat with a democrat does less damage than the other way around, because I’m sure it won’t do as much good as I want it to.

All three of the candidates claimed to be the answer to the “status quo”. And they are, depending on what you define as “status quo”. My definition is such that nothing short of a complete changing of the guard on capital hill can provide the answer. The only way to get our country back on track is to remove every politician on the take from office and then remove all lobbyists. The only way is to change the platforms of both major parties. To allow third parties a fair chance at winning. To get the citizenry of this country to participate in the process and reduce the power of factions.

Will either Brown or Coakley help us accomplish any of that? Probably not. I figured, though, that a former attorney general is far less bribeable than a man who posed for Playgirl, so she was the safer bet for me.

Tuesday’s election not just about health care

So on Tuesday, we’ve got a special election here in Massachusetts to fill the senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy. Naturally, the primary candidates for the seat are a Republican — Scott Brown — and a Democrat — Martha Coakley. I’m very torn as to how I’m going to vote. Without revealing too much, here’s my dilemma.

We’re told that this vote will determine the balance of the senate and — consequently — the success potential of the current health care legislation being considered in the two houses. Voting Coakley is, we’re told, a vote for the current health care legislation and voting for Brown would logically be a vote against it. The trouble is, I don’t agree with some primary items within the health care legislation, so this election for me is more about ideologies going beyond this particular piece of legislation.

Do I send in someone who will maintain the status quo of the current Democratic platform and continue moving things in the direction that they’re going, which is not necessarily a good thing? Or do I send in someone who will attempt to override the status quo with a different kind of status quo that is what I feel the country is trying to run from.

Whatever I end up deciding, please try and see that this upcoming special election is not just about health care — no matter how many well-written radio ads may tell you otherwise.

This is an election about personal liberties, responses to terrorist plots, the war in Afghanistan, the FED, and everything else that is plaguing the country at this point. The health care bill as written does nothing but ensure that health insurance companies will always have customers. Period. No matter what other reforms are within the x-thousand pages of that document, it forces every american to have health insurance. Mandates under penalty of law that we all purchase insurance from some gigantic corporation. Reform? Maybe. Maybe not.

In the long term, there are many other issues at hand than this year’s particular bill, and those are things we need to think about when casting our vote on Tuesday. How will Brown and/or Coakley handle the approvals of a supreme court justice? Potential impeachment? Future bills on domestic security? Vote your conscience, vote your voice.

Mass. House approves “Pandemic” bill

Mass. House approves bill allowing quarantines – Boston.com.

The article written by an AP journalist and published by the Boston Globe doesn’t mention when the vote took place on this bill or what the bill is. That lack of information is unacceptable since this bill has been around some time. Below is a brief history of the bill passed today with links to appropriate texts published by the Massachusetts government.

The two bills that make up this discussion are Senate bill number 2028 — nee, Senate 18 — and House bill number 108. In looking at the history of the Senate bill, you can see that the number was changed to House 4271 after it left the Committee on Ways and Means and was voted on today.

The next step is for the disagreements in the Senate and House versions of the bills to be hammered out, voted on and then sent to the Governor for signing. At this point, my guess is that it will go through with very little debate as the Senate and House bills are very very similar.

If you don’t want this to pass, this is your last chance to do something about it. Call your local representative and tell them why you don’t want this bill to go through. Make your argument very clear, though, and stay away from the “it’s unconstitutional” thing. There is a clause in the Massachusetts Constitution in the article on property rights that reads thusly (emphasis mine):

Article X. Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. [See Amendments, Arts. XXXIX, XLIII, XLVII, XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2, XLIX, L, LI and XCVII.]

As you can see, as long as Massachusetts citizens’ representatives give permission, the Constitution of this “Commonwealth” allows the removing of one’s property by the government. This bill is, in fact, constitutional according to the rules of the state. It may be unconstitutional at the federal level, but since it only affects state residents that’s a moot point.

You want my advice? Appeal to the more Libertarian nature of your representative and/or senator. Ask them whether they relish the idea of family members being forced to be vaccinated against their will. As them whether they trust future governors to understand exactly what a “statewide health emergency” entails. Is it the flu? An outbreak of the common cold? What about the vastly under-powered “Swine-flu”?

This bill only goes into effect as long as there’s a state of emergency. The logical question, then, is exactly what constitutes that state, and do we trust a single person — Governor — to declare it?

Follow up:

On further reading, the Massachusetts Constitution does allow for protections from search and seizure, however (Article XIV). That said, there is also a clause that allows for declarations of emergency (Article XX). There’s some fodder in there for an argument of unconstitutionality, I suppose, but I still say that the best arguments lie on other paths.