Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Is the proposal to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Constitutional?

Where to start on this one? There are so many things wrong with this that it may take a little while to pull it all apart, so please bear with me.

First things first: Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Pursue is unconstitutional. Now, I know the Republicans out there are going to blow a gasket on this one, but if you want to rally around the Constitution when it suits your purpose (hello second amendment, with which I also agree), you have to show the same respect for the things you might not personally agree with. As odd as this may sound, my reasoning for this is the same as why I was against the attempt to recoup the bonuses paid to AIG employees. For those of you who don't understand why I didn't want to "get my money back from those evil capitalists who nearly flattened our banking system", it's called Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 specifically places limits on Congress. Within Section 9, it states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or specific group of people. So, it is for this reason Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional.

Now for those of us that have served in the military, there is also the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to take into account. There are various articles within the UCMJ that one could utilize to make the argument that gays in the military would be in violation of. I have one simple question to those people. Would a straight man or woman ever be prosecuted under those articles? If you're honest with yourself, you know the answer is no. The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States.

To hopefully tie it up in a neat little bow for everyone, my final point. If a straight service member were to take advantage of their 1st Amendment rights and proclaim their love for their spouse, would they be discharged from the military? No. Forbidding a gay service member to exercise their 1st Amendment rights would amount to a violation of their 14th Amendment rights, would it not?

The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is COMPLETELY Constitutional.

The above is not a commentary on society or people's personal choices. The above is an item currently in the news. It also serves to show the hypocrisy that exists within our society. The above also illustrates that my belief and respect for our Constitution does not pander to any one political party, religion, person, or group. My belief lies in our founding documents and principles. If there are people within a political party that embody those beliefs, they will have my support. No party ever will.

Reconciliation

Well, it looks as if the poll has been answered by the president and the majority leaders in the House and Senate. On this issue, they don't really seem to care about the Constitution. I guess it's just an archaic useless document that they really don't need to abide by.

Health Care Reform

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?

I've gone through Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and here are the powers granted to Congress, as I understand them:

1. Lay and collect taxes, duties, etc. (They do GREAT with this)
2. Pay the debts of the United States.
3. Provide for the common defense.
4. Borrow money on the credit of the United States. (Another one they are GREAT at)
5. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the states.
6. Establish uniform rules for naturalization and bankruptcies throughout the United States.
7. Coin money and regulate its value.
8. Provide for punishment of counterfeiting.
9. Establish Post Offices.
10. Copyright/Patent protection.
11. Declare war.
12. Raise and support armed forces.

I have not listed items dealing with Piracy, Tribunals lesser than the Supreme Court, and the calling forth of the militia because for the most part, they're pretty arcane. If you're interested in learning about those items, look them up.

Nowhere in the above items did I see anything about reforming healthcare, providing healthcare, mandating that every person have healthcare, to tax or not tax certain types of healthcare (forbidden by the way, Article 1, Section 9 see Bill of Attainder), or deciding what should be included or omitted from healthcare plans.

It seems to me that today's Summit is based on a faulty argument. That being that they are actually granted the authority to do it. They're not. Just because people have talked for over a year about: what it will look like, how it will be paid for, who will run it, whether or not it covers abortions, whether or not it will pull the plug on Grandma via Death Panels, whether it's all about tax and spend Liberals or the party of no Conservatives doesn't mean it is Constitutional or allowed.

Are they trying to pass this and hopes no one realizes that it's unconstitutional? Are they completely ignorant to the fact that they aren't allowed to do this? Do they just not care, because we're not smart enough to know what's best for us?

Not that a challenge from little old me is going to impact their thinking, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

If this is truly what we should be doing, then do it in the full light of day. Do it the right way. Propose an Amendment to the Constitution. Make it a Constitutional right and/or guarantee that every American has health insurance and that the Federal Government is on the hook for it. Get that Amendment passed and ratified, and then you can start figuring out how to do it.

OR

If so many people want healthcare, let the states handle it on their own. After all, the 10th Amendment does state that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This seems to be the easiest, most Constitutional way to get it done, but what do I know?