Terrifying Words, We're From the Government, We're Here to Help

I'm using this article to showcase how far our nation/government has managed to push itself away from the constitution. That document was one that limited govt to specific things it could do. It was a limiting document,on the government. But as you can read for yourself now our government sees itself above the Consitution (for the good of the people of course)and even as a definer of the Constitution. A logical extension of everyman doing what is right in his own eyes is for the government to do what is right in its own eyes (for the good of the people of course)

The Coldest Monster, The Cruelest Slavemaster
by William Norman Grigg

It's not that often that we can say with perfect confidence that a judicial ruling will lead directly to the needless agonizing deaths of innocent people. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. handed down just such a ruling (.pdf) in a case brought against the FDA.....

....Bobbing in the porridge of intellectual perversity served by the court is this particularly unpalatable morsel: "[C]reating constitutional rights to be free from regulation based solely upon a prior lack of regulation would undermine much of the modern administrative state, which, like drug regulation, has increased in scope as changing conditions have warranted."...

From this single observation we can extract the logic (if that word can be tortured into applying here) of the entire ruling:

Constitutional rights are a government artifact, "created" primarily by the courts.

Since "rights" are creations of the State, they can be summoned into existence, summarily abolished, or modified as the government sees fit, in order to serve the
State's "compelling interests."

The fact that certain freedoms have been historically exercised by Americans – such as the right to seek alternative treatments for life-threatening conditions, a right exercised by Americans without qualification for most of our nation's history (from the colonial period until 1962) – is of no consequence when the State decides to expand its own regulatory mandate.

If, in defiance of the foregoing assumptions, terminally ill patients are permitted to exercise ownership over their health by seeking treatments not approved by government, then the entire rationale for the "administrative" State will be fatally undermined. It is better that we let a few innocent people die in agony, than to permit the State's regulatory powers to be undermined in any way...

In a dissent that is as intellectually taut as the majority opinion is flaccid, Judge Judith Rogers italicizes the obvious – namely, that the "right of a person to save [his] own life," which was entirely ignored in the decision, is the fundamental human liberty. An illustration of the court's alienation from reality is found in the fact that Rogers considered it necessary to fortify this "Well, duh" proposition by supplying quotes from Blackstone and Samuel Adams on the subject...

Read more>>