21st Century Bill of Rights

In my last blog I alluded to how there were those, from the far left and far right, trying to subvert the legislative process of this country by interjecting their extreme hard core party ideology and beliefs. This results in delaying or prohibiting any meaningful negotiations or compromises.

Well, the Kentucky Senate has joined in this effort with their proposed legislative initiative, known in Frankfort, as Senate Bill 3. The bill was very partisan in committee with all 20 Republicans voting for the bill and the remaining democrats, rolling over and playing dead, by abstaining from the vote.

The bill, nicknamed the “21st Century Bill of Rights” is an assault on any perceived liberal view either from the U.S. President or U.S. Congress.

If the bill is passed by the full Senate and the House in Frankfort in this year’s legislature, it would appear before the Kentucky voters on the November 2, 2010 ballot for their consideration as a constitutional amendment.

The highlights of the bill include nine points. Some of which, I agree with, and some, I do not. But the controversial issues appear to have been sugar coated and lumped in with popular ideas as a take-it-all or leave-it-all proposition.

The first issue is to state that the voters deserve an ‘inalienable’ right to ‘comprehend’ the legislation, raising or lowering tax revenues and appropriations.
The proponents of this bill seem to think this could be accomplished in 48 hours.

In the case of some legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, this could take more like 48 years, but I have no real problem with this one.

Second, they are championing the need for an ‘informed’ citizenry and seem to think this will be accomplished with wide use of technology and electronic media.

Ostensibly, this is one of many ways to share and provide news and information, but, there are still a large number of households in this state with no computer access. So, this is not a cure-all, only an aid in the ‘knowledge deficiency’ of the general public.

The third point is to prevent government from compelling health care providers to participate in any health care system. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to de-rail the proposed national health care initiative.

This may be a moot point anyway, as many doctors and dentists and other health care providers, even today, fail to treat patients with Medicaid, Medicare, or CHAMPUS (military) insurance.

The bill’s fourth issue states that no health care entity should be required to perform abortion services. Even, if the ‘Obama Health Care Plan’ passes and funds for abortions services are available, it is doubtful that there would be a ‘mandatory’ requirement to provide the service. And, again, currently, there are hospitals and providers that elect ‘not’ to provide the service.

I personally am ‘against’ abortions. Unfortunately, I have to be ‘pro-choice,’ because I don’t have my head stuck in the sand, and I realize that abortions will occur, whether they are legal or not.

After working in the health care field for over 30 years, I recognize the additional tragedy when illegal abortions are performed. As well as death to the unborn child, there is the added risk of severe, permanent, injury or even death to the mother. Anytime, I’m asked about the decision or choice, I always encourage the mother ‘not’ to have the abortion.

The fifth article deals with the severing of coal, and basically deals with this state being ‘pro-coal’. I endorse this idea as long as there is also an enforceable mandate for strict land reclamation and stringent air quality provisions.

The next issue deals with there being no government entity interfering with the posting of the Ten Commandments as a part of a display of historical documents.

I have no issue with this matter, either. As a matter of fact, there is a very attractive display of such documents in the Estill County Courthouse today.

But, the over-riding concern is the interpretation of the courts concerning this matter. Citizens’ opinions matter little when they are counter indicated by the court system. Opinions have to become laws and approved as being constitutional before they are legal in the eyes of the courts.

The next issue is a ‘wordy’ phrase basically stating that no one should be prevented from doing or not doing anything because of their faith. This is probably the least thought-out of all the proposed bills. It is written solely to placate those fearing religious persecution.

The establishment clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment has already covered this. It states: “Congress shall make no laws respecting or establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As far as I can determine, there has been no formal establishment of a state sanctioned religion or faith.

However, there ‘does’ need to be certain laws that may ‘appear’ to infringe upon the religious rights of others. Examples include those faiths that prevent underage children from receiving medical treatment; those that don’t approve of military service; those who think polygamy is a religious right; those, whose leaders engage in sex with the youth of their church; those who believe in the use of illicit drugs in their worship; and there are others.

It is of extreme importance, that when we think of freedom of religion, we realize that the laws are not ‘just’ for Christians alone, but for anyone who professes ‘any’ faith or religion. Christianity and religion are not synonymous terms.

The eighth matter of concern is related to gun control. This is essentially a re-inventing of the wheel. It is virtually a repeat of the second amendment with the addition of the word ammunition.

The problem with gun control laws is not what is written on a document, as much as the interpretation of the laws by the courts. I am a staunch supporter of gun rights, and have a concealed deadly weapon permit.

But, as with so many ‘hot topic’ buttons, I feel this issue was added to give the “21st Century Bill of Rights” a degree of legitimacy in this ‘gun-loving’ state. Again, I think it is redundant to include this issue.

This final article is simply stating that Kentucky, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims sovereignty over all powers not specifically spelled out to and granted to the federal government.

Again, this is directly addressed in the 10th Amendment where it states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the states.

So, this is again, redundant. It is much ado about nothing. Those trying to discount slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War, always claim it was a state rights issue. But, it has been decided, time and time again, that state rights never supersede federal law.

To pass such irresponsible, even if well-intentioned, legislation, will open a plethora of federal law suits with never-ending appeals and a bottomless pit of legal expenses.