We need socialism now! (The details are unneccesary...)

Socialized medicine can be painful.

According to this news report from England, literally:

Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.

The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

You'd think we could learn from Britain's mistakes, but not the Democrats. The Obamacare bill was approved in committee, but narrowly. I didn't think they'd be in such a hurry to be so stupid.

What I think is beyond stupid is the increasingly common pattern of legislators voting for legislation they have not read. While I'm not a constitutional scholar, I think a case can be made that laws enacted without being read by the legislators who voted for them are unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution (which each Congressman is sworn to uphold), Congress has power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its enumerated powers. Can anyone tell me by what stretch of the imagination a law which has not been read can be considered "necessary and proper"? I think the constitutional language "necessary and proper" carries with it a requirement that congressmen use judgment and deliberation, that they have at least thought about the legislation they are passing, and therefore, I would argue that there is a Constitutional requirement that any law being made must first have been read.

Surely, if the right to privacy can be read into the penumbra of rights, it is not asking too much to recognize that legislators -- who are required to determine whether a law is necessary and proper -- cannot perform that legislative function unless they have read the law in question.

There is also a well-known legal doctrine (which the Supreme Court has recognized) known as Ignorantia juris non excusat -- often summed up as "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." In order for this principle to have any meaning in law or equity, it would be manifestly unfair to allow legislators to be passing laws of which they themselves are ignorant.

Does the constitutional due process requirement prohibit their enforcement? I think it might. According to the the United States Supreme Court, due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

If it isn't a fundamental principle that legislators must read the laws they require us to obey, then what is a fundamental principle?

That legislators read a law they would require us to obey is as fundamental as the right to be present in court. It's as fundamental as the right to be free from taxation without representation. Such things were considered worth fighting for when this country was born.

Whatever could be next? If they pass laws that haven't been read (and might contain anything), why bother with other legal niceties?

Just pass a bill establishing socialism and let the bureaucrats work out the details later.

posted by Eric on 08.03.09 at 03:12 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8597






Comments

I had a comment in mind but Glenn Beck came on and I have to go laugh now.

I was watching Cavuto and he came on.
He actually got a retraction from Obama and he's doubling down on it.

That's about funny.

Now he looks so much better than all the people who made fun of him.

How many others have gotten a response out of Obama?
He might be a fruitcake, but he's a funny fruitcake and he's right more than wrong.

Veeshir   ·  August 3, 2009 05:07 PM

It's even worse. Not only are they refusing scientific help that actually works, they are offering acupuncture and chiropractors.

Phelps   ·  August 3, 2009 05:53 PM

Having been the recipient of 4 of those injections in the last few months, I think messing with people in pain is a really bad idea... not having anything to do with the empathy we should feel, but because those of us in serious pain will rip your face off if we think it might help.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  August 3, 2009 06:16 PM

Mrs. du Toit,

You are of course aware that if you use too much pain medicine the DEA may come after you or your Doctor are you not?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/07/drug-war-is-war-on-you.html

The link is to a posted video with links to more in the series. I sure hope the Drug War doesn't put you in permanent pain.

Because with the DEA controlling the practice of pain medicine you could be in serious trouble if you need more drugs than the law allows. And just think. You don't even need to wait for socialized medicine.

M. Simon   ·  August 3, 2009 08:45 PM

The injections can mask the underlying problem (pressure on the spinal nerves). I had three shots over a year until finally back surgery took the pressure off. But by then it was too late. Waiting too long I caused permanent nerve damage in my right leg.

If I didn't have the shots I would have done it much sooner and probably avoided using a cane.

Disraeli   ·  August 3, 2009 08:55 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


August 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits