Too many people these days falsely believe that the United States Constitution is all about individual rights, such as freedom of speech, the right to own a gun, and the right to have an abortion.
They forget about "promote the general welfare" in the preamble to the Constitution.
Yesterday I read a great opinion piece by Paul VanDevelder in the Portland Oregonian: "Too many willing soldiers in the culture war." (In case that link stops working, I'll include the essay in an addendum to this post.)
My favorite part of the piece is a description of what happened when a couple of right-wingers, Kevin Mannix (an attorney) and Bill Sizemore (convicted racketeer) challenged the constitutionality of a proposed ballot initiative before the state Supreme Court.
We all rose as the seven judges filed into the courtroom and took their
seats. Chief Justice Michael Gillette, a conservative Harvard-educated
jurist with a deliberate manner and a short fuse, didn't dilly-dally.
He gave a brief oral summary of the initiative in a stentorian voice,
then asked Mannix to explain his protest.
Mannix, no stranger to the court, cut to the chase. He told the court
that Section 8 of the initiative, which read, "In an equal contest
between the rights of an individual and the welfare of the community,
the welfare of the community is usually superior," was simply
un-American. By subordinating the liberties of individuals to the
well-being of the community, this concept, charged Mannix, violated
every principle of freedom our nation stands for, and voters needed to
understand what was at stake.
Mannix thrust his chin into the air. After an interval of electric
silence, the chief justice rocked forward on his elbows and bellowed,
"That principle, Mr. Mannix, lies at the heart of American foundational
law! When was the last time you read the U.S. Constitution? Exactly
what is your problem with our Constitution, Mr. Mannix?"
In one brief statement, Justice Gillette had measured the ground we
have lost since James Madison and Alexander Hamilton set out to
illuminate and safeguard the precarious balance that exists in a
representative democracy between the rights of the individual and the
welfare of the community.
I thought of these sentiments when I came across a story about how lawmakers in some states are trying to amend their constitutions to outlaw a requirement that everyone have health insurance.
(I assume next they will try to outlaw mandatory auto insurance for drivers.)
This requirement likely will be part of whatever national health insurance reform bill is passed by Congress. It's necessary to make our mediocre health care system better than Costa Rica's.
One reason, among several, is that if some people are able to opt out of health insurance, the rest of us are going to end up paying their bills when they end up in the emergency room after they get sick and need subsidized charity care.
But the individual right'ists don't care about the general welfare of this country. They're selfishly focused on me, me, me — allowing a few people to gain benefits at the expense of the many.
VanDevelder goes to say that the Oregon Supreme Court voted 7-0 against the notion that individuals rights and freedoms should be allowed to triumph over the larger common good.
Hopefully Kevin Mannix used this as a teachable moment to learn about the United States Constitution (which you'd think he'd have been exposed to in law school; maybe he slept through those classes).
Here's the essay.
1