I’m always amazed at how our leaders make decisions that completely go against the will of the people. Too many bills get passed without being properly debated. Our elected officials will take a bill, dress it up and make it look nice on the surface, but it will wreak havoc on the inside.
Why do bills like that even make it through Congress? Because our congressmen and women are not listening to us. If they were they would let us in on the debate. Politicians don’t want an open debate, though, because then they would be forced to hear the truth, and they’ll have no choice but to understand the opposition to these crazy bills that are passed. That is, if they’re competent enough to understand.
But when they don’t listen, we the people end up with some awful piece of legislation the majority of us didn’t want. How is that “the consent of the governed?”
The short answer always seems to be “Well, the people do have a voice…with their votes.” So how has that worked out for us? It hasn’t. The people vote in those who look good, say all the right things and promise change. And when they get to Washington, they eventually become politicians along with the rest of those who gave in. And the people end up losing.
One of the things Obama and the left wanted to achieve when he was elected was to enact a state-run healthcare plan for the entire country, whether the entire country agreed with such a plan or not. The left already had most of their plan in place from the days when Hillary Clinton tried unsuccessfully to implement one. Thankfully, we had a Republican House and Senate that said “Oh no you don’t.”
Fast forward about 15 years and Obama enters office with a Democratic House and Senate to work with. A huge, monstrosity of a healthcare bill is compiled, some 3,000 pages of unread rules, regulations and mandates, and it gets forced through Congress with nary a debate over it.
The deceit was obvious and the arrogance blatant, but that didn’t stop the left from having their way. To them, the end was more important than the means. Now they can say they did something. Problem is, they did something really bad.
Same with immigration reform
In 1994, when Californians still had the courage to fight for their state, they passed Proposition 187 by a vote of 59-41 percent. Prop 187 was called the “Save our State” act and sought to eliminate services that illegals help themselves to. But pro-illegal alien groups, along with school districts, deemed it unconstitutional because it disabled illegal aliens from obtaining services like education and healthcare. In reality, what they essentially said is that illegal aliens should be given services that Americans pay for.
What an insult. There’s nothing unconstitutional about restricting services to those who do not belong here. And there’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that illegal aliens shouldn’t have rights that Americans worked for.
Shortly after its passage, Prop 187 was challenged with lawsuits. A federal court, unfortunately, ruled most of the new law unconstitutional. Years later when Gray Davis became Governor, he refused to appeal the federal court’s decision and that was that.
California’s leadership should have put its foot down when it had its chance. Failing to do that has only sent the message that California is an “anything goes” state. It’s exactly the kind of state special interests groups like to operate in.
With immigration, there is an eagerness among many in Congress to find a solution when a solution already exists. The solution they seek, which really equates to amnesty, goes against so much of what makes America who she is. Those who really know something about this issue are the ones who aren’t being heard. The elected leaders who get to decide the fate of this country don’t know much about illegal immigration and haven’t experienced the realities of the devastation it causes. More emphasis is placed on the plight of the foreigner than on the hardship of Americans who are affected by this illegal act.
We are, for some reason, entrusting our elected leaders to handle this very sensitive potential piece of legislation, one that will affect America and what she becomes in a most profound way, without a proper discussion about the horrendous effects on a massive scale it will have. On such a monumental issue with monumental consequences, shouldn’t we have an open debate, one that is not controlled by the media, so that every side is allowed to be heard fairly?
Another California law overturned
In November 2008, Californians passed Proposition 8, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. The bill passed, which means that it becomes law, correct? Well, not according to those on the losing side of the issue. They complained about it and appealed it. A decision is set for June 2013.
Why do we allow this to happen? Why do we not demand an open discussion about bills that will have a major impact on Americans? Let’s have a congressional hearing on every major piece of legislation proposed. If it has to be a dog and pony show, then so be it. This needs to be done. All sides need to be heard. The American people especially need to be heard. Objectivity needs to prevail and real experts, not supposed experts, should testify and present facts for all to see.
How is it fair to be forced by government mandate to purchase healthcare insurance? That is not the government’s role. How is it unconstitutional, on the other hand, to demand that we don’t spend taxpayer money on illegal aliens? That is something that makes total sense. How is it unconstitutional that we ensure that the definition of marriage not be tampered with? We have let the few and the loud walk all over the many and the silent. The voices of we the people don’t matter much unless they’re exercised. It’s time for the silent to exercise their voices and be heard loud and clear.