You are not your own

With the country in a near meltdown over recent Supreme Court decisions, a few things need to be said.

These musings will not settle any issue. Like as not, they will also not convince anyone to even consider changing their mind.

Eh. I have to write it out because that is what I do. I can lead you to reason, but I can not and will not make you think.

You Are Not Your Own

While it may appear I am borrowing a page from the Sovereign Citizen movement, I am not. One thing these people and I do have in common is we believe You Are Not Your Own according to the government. In other words, you are not allowed to control your own body. The government controls your body, if you believe the current government is legitimate. 

The Dobbs decision is just a drop in an oil tanker.

Some of you are shaking your heads and calling me an idiot now. 

Here is your proof.

MEDICAL

You do not have the right to decide what medical procedures you go through. Two Supreme Court decisions from Jan. 2022 make this clear.

"The rule mandates COVID-19 vaccination, absent a medical or religious exemption, for all health care workers in institutions that receive federal funding for patients enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid," says Health Affairs.

That was Biden v. Missouri in case you wanna look it up.

The other was NFIB v. OSHA. That one said, OSHA overreached its authority.

OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here, the decision says.

Neither ruling overturned a 1905 decision.

That one says in part, A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.

An aside: this is the same line of reasoning (at least where legislative action is concerned) that SCOTUS used in the most recent gun decision and the abortion decision. These matters are left to state legislatures and voters.

Can you get medical care from someone who is not trained nor certified? Yes. Most of us had a mom or dad who put a Band-Aid on us. If you are old like me, you also got dosed with Mercurochrome too. Practicing medicine without a license is illegal, but the person doing the work gets charged, not you.

Buck v. Bell was overturned. That one can be reversed yet again. While rare, we just saw SCOTUS did, can and will flip previous decisions. I've been saying for years Stari Decisis is a convenient legal fiction. This statement annoys people, particularly lawyers, but the empirical evidence is on my side.

Buck, in case you wonder, was overturned in 1978.

SCOTUS says rejecting food and water is a decision a person can legally make, except when government says otherwise.

If this has not made my point on medical matters, then anything else I add will not make a difference.

You are not your own.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

A lot of people are yelling that the abortion decision only affects women. Well, more accurately in that line of reasoning, it affects pregnant women who seek abortion. Owing to the reality of biology, men cannot have an abortion so saying this is biological sex discrimination is technically accurate, but bloody stupid at the same time.

However, sex discrimination is intentionally, deliberately and specifically built into federal law without any solid reason behind it.

Selective Service - Exclusively male. Women are not required to sign up and have never, in the US, been subject to the draft. Repeated court cases over this one have left this mandatory registration for armed services duty if needed intact. Court cases have also repeatedly declared leaving it male-only is acceptable.

It was only recently women were allowed to intentionally be in combat roles.

You, men anyway, are not your own.

VICTIMLESS CRIMES

Lemme bend your metaphorical ear for a moment about victimless crimes. In short, victimless means no one is harmed, except for someone's feelings. Yes. Feelings. 

...most offenses against morals such as gambling, which are not designed for the protection of a particular vulnerable class, should be viewed as having no real "victim"... (emphasis mine) says the DOJ.

In other words, you think it is wrong so no one should be able to do it. That kinda thinking invites other people to tell you the exact same thing and stop you from doing the things you want to do. Lemme slap you with some daffodils.

If you can prove physical or financial harm, then making the activity illegal bears discussion. Ripping a reputation to shreds has affected people's ability to earn money, so economic harm is there. Getting your feelings hurt, despite what the cantservative and liarberal crowd believe, should not be something for the law to deal with. If your feelings get hurt, put on your adult britches and move along.

While I have opinions regarding items in the list below, I am not sharing my opinion, except for one. I'm just telling you these are crimes of a moral nature. Moral = feelings in this case.

Prostitution - Except for parts of Nevada, being a hooker of any gender is illegal. Hiring a hooker is illegal most places. Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, home of Las Vegas. Being a hooker is legal in most of the state. 

Drugs - Can you go out and buy heroin just because you want to? Yes. However, buying it is illegal. Some drugs you can buy over the counter, some require a prescription and some others require the prescribing doc to have a Drug Enforcement Agency permit in addition to all the other licenses required to be a legally practicing doctor. Speaking of drugs, a here is a just-in unanimous decision on prescribing drugs.You certainly can buy alcohol, legally if you are at least 21. Why the difference? You can buy tobacco products legally if you are at least 21. Do you know how old you have to be to legally work in a tobacco field? Dunno about your state, but here in Jawja, we have no minimum age at all for farm workers. 

Contraband - What is contraband and what is not varies widely and depends on the place and the time. Step across a state line and what was legal where you were is now illegal where you are. Imagine standing in one place with something in your pocket. 3/4s of you is breaking the law. It can happen. In this vein, you do not have the right to own anything. You can lease it from the government in the form of taxes. You also pay taxes for the privilege to work. If you have to pay to do it, it is not a right but a privilege. If government wants to take it away from you, just have to declare possession illegal.

Public drunk - This is not drunk driving, which is rightly illegal on public roads. If you get plastered and want to walk home, you can be arrested.

Assisted suicide - This is illegal. Doctor assisted suicide is legal in a few places. (See link). Some states say attempted suicide is illegal, which is bizarre when you think about it. Illegal to try, but if you succeed, it is not a crime. Kinda hard to prosecute someone who is dead, of course. In other words, you cannot end your own life without government permission beforehand. Paradoxically, the government can grant itself permission to end your life. Capital punishment is legal in most states and is federally legal. Add to this, sometimes just sentencing someone to prison is increasingly a death sentence. 

Gambling - Unless you live in Nevada, Atlantic City or have a however-tenuous connection to Native American tribes, as in standing in one of their casinos, you cannot legally gamble in person. I know places that have poker every weekend. It is illegal. Why? Gambling online? May be illegal. If it is your money, shouldn't you be allowed to spend it as you see fit when you do not hurt anyone?

Public nudity - Set aside the fact most of us should NEVER appear naked in public. The question is, aside from needing eye bleach (he wrote sarcastically), who gets hurt when some walks around in public in nothing but their birthday suit? The idea of protecting ANYONE from seeing a nude person who is just going about their day, albeit without clothes, is in direct contradiction to all kinds of art like statues, paintings and even live displays.

Homelessness -  Yes, it is illegal in many places to be homeless. Why? Justifications like stopping people from pooping on the sidewalk may be aimed at homeless people, but these laws also affect people who have homes. Besides which, those laws are environmental safety issues.

Trespassing - According to some, this is a "victimless" crime. According to others, me being one, it is not. I maintain property for hunting. When people walk through, it can and does disturb the hunting programs I have in place, not to mention the dangers to the person doing the trespassing during hunting season. Further, I should be able to control who comes into my house.

Raw Milk - As of this year, Georgia joins the ranks of states where you can buy raw milk. Still illegal in most states. I looked up a list of other banned in the US foods, but every one I checked listed some stuff banned when it is legal. F'r'instance, horse meat is legal in the US for human consumption. Beluga caviar is legal, sort of. Despite them growing wild, "magic mushrooms" are pretty much illegal.

You can vote if you are 18. Why the difference, is something people wiser than I often ask. If you have "body autonomy" then what you put in it is your business and yours alone. When you become an adult, it should be government hands off.

You are not your own.

MARRIAGE

Sooner or later, someone is gonna point to the Obergefell decision on marriage, the one that said two ladies, two gents or two humans of whatever gender-of-the-moment they want to be have the right to marry each other. This decision does say:

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

Pay attention. That's the first premise, there is more:

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. Lotta "general welfare" going on here. Lotta hypocrisy too.

What we have here is the High Court being hypocrites, in addition to saying marriage is matter of legal and social order. In the abortion and gun decisions, the dissent (who was in the majority on the marriage decision) says the historical record is not valid. Here, it is valid. Pick one and stick with it, wudjaplease. But that's another blog.

Anyway, one more from the Obergefell decision, which overruled the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, the first same-sex marriage case to hit the High Court after Loving v. Virginia.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

Didja read that? REQUIRES. That is a stand-alone, one-line paragraph. SCOTUS decisions are carefully worded, carefully phrased, edited, revised, stomped flat, brushed off, refined in fire and so on before being publicly issued. Making this a single-line paragraph is not an accident. The judges wanted it to stand out. Someone will say also it says between 2 people of the same sex. That only means states cannot restrict licenses to a man and a woman. Do it for John and Jane, gotta do it for John and John or Jane and Jane or J and J.

Wanna get married, better ask Big Brother. Obergefell is not only about love, it is about government control over you.

Amusingly enough, the same decision also says children are better raised by married couples, not unmarried parents. Don't believe it. It's in the decision and this time I ain't doing your homework.

You are not your own.

GAME OVER

Some people are still going to argue about body autonomy. Read this and see Game Over.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That, luddites and geraniums, is the opening statement of the US Constitution, ONE of the bodies of work the US Supreme Court, the various legislatures from City Councils up to Congress and the executive branches of government use to govern. I say "one of" because laws and various court decisions reference a lot more than just the US Constitution, but that's another blog.

Four words "promote the general welfare" mean you are not your own person. The Constitution even says as much. Slaves were 3/5ths of a person. At the time those words were written, women had whatever rights their fathers/brothers or husbands chose to let them have. Native Americans, yeah, well books are written about that too Yes, the Constitution changed, but that original intent is still very much a part of the current laws and various court decisions.

You may not care what the Founding Fathers said or meant. Reality also does not care what you say, mean, intend or think. The current reality is what I'm dealing with and that is you are not your own.

Furthermore, lots of people debate what those four simple words mean. Debate all you like. As it stands right now, only 5 opinions matter and those are the opinions of 5 Supreme Court justices, which is a majority.

No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds, says the Law Library.

So have the Supremes ever decided what the "general welfare" covers? Regularly and routinely. Most of the SCOTUS decisions have covered general welfare and spending. An excellent example of this is Jones v. Flowers. The entire court agreed property taxes are legal and necessary. They only split on minutiae in the case.

What about where it concerns body autonomy? See the Medical Decision cases and the list of banned stuff above. More? Okay

You are forced to have health insurance.

You do have the right to refuse medical treatment, sort of. People who are legally not allowed to decide the issue for themselves can have medical treatment done even if it is against their wishes. (Got a living will yet?) If the person later objects (living will yet?), think a Jehovah Witness unconscious and getting a blood transfusion, oh well. Sorry about that. (Living will yet?) In the absence of a living will, other people decide for you.

Here are a few cases the American Medical Association focuses on. As you eyeball these, bear in mind these are wins for the AMA. You have to search the archives to find cases they lost.

The debate over that "general welfare" clause is old, as in the people who wrote the Constitution argued about it old. States have specifically expanded general welfare in their own constitutions to cover matters of health and more.

Narrow this a bit more and focus on the word general. As much as it grinds my libertarian soul into subatomic particles, attorney James Rogers is spot on.

First, promoting the “general welfare” stands in relation to its antonym, that of promoting a particular or limited welfare. Promoting the general welfare certainly rules out promoting the welfare of particular individuals or factions.

Thus sayeth the Supreme Court, including the minority in the recent Big 3 cases and in so many more decisions than just the Big 3 causing so much heartburn.

dammitdammitdammitdammit Game over.

You may not like this. However, as a great friend of mine says when I object to things he supports, "This is our social contract."

You are not your own.

You are not your own.