I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday, which I do most days. I have to say that I am a fan of his show, as well as Rush’s–they make me think. Yesterday I heard Beck say something that had me screaming “Nooooo!” at my radio. If I hadn’t have been driving, I would have called in to try to correct him. I’ve heard him (and plenty of others) make this claim, and I think it’s dangerous.

He said that we do not have a right to health care. It’s not in the Constitution, and so we don’t have a right to it, so what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional. (I’m paraphrasing)

I could not disagree more (except for the unconstitutional part). Americans most certainly do have a right to health care–I believe it stems from the right to life, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The 9th Amendment disallows the “it’s not in the Constitution so it isn’t a right argument,” to wit: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

As conservatives, we need to get away from that argument, in my opinion. Consider this: not many people would say that Americans don’t have a right to travel, right? It isn’t listed in the Constitution either. How about a right to eat? Or sell you car?

The problem is that we have allowed the liberals/progressive/statists stake out the health-care-as-a-right position, and because of this, we have allowed them to define what is included in that right. As they would have you believe, health care is a right, and so (among other things):

-you have a right to demand any treatment for any ailment, regardless of cost or prior conditions.

-you have a right to certain diagnostic testing, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, free of cost to you

-you have a right to an abortion, free of charge

Let’s not forget, that your only responsibility with this right is to purchase whatever minimum coverage some unelected bureaucrat decides is best for you (and everyone else) at whatever price they decide. I’ve written (sarcastically) before about how this would look if the same logic were applied to a right that IS enumerated in the Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms. Basically, everyone would be required to purchase certain firearms, and there would be subsidies for purchasing them; training would be given, regardless of the ability to pay; and we’d even throw in compulsory hunting permits. Applied to the second amendment, this logic is laughable…but the Democrat leadership happily applies this to health care, and we’ve let them define it.

The fact is, we DO have a right to health care. We DO NOT have a right to demand other give freely of their time in our own pursuit of it (mandatory life-saving treatment statutes notwithstanding). This health care bill–and any bill like it which seeks to provide health care services for citizens–is a health care bill which is seeking to confer the latter, and must be stopped. Individual health insurance mandates are not the only unconstitutional aspects of the bill, and we need to start trumpeting that. Let’s oust the liberal/progressive/statists from their position, and make the argument that health care is a right in this country.

I believe Thomas Sowell (may have been Walter Williams?) wrote on this subject, but it has been so long since I read the article that I can’t even remember where I saw it. I apologize for no link to that essay–it is what helped mold my thoughts on this.

Firearms play a very important role in our society. Their uses are numerous: protection of our lands from invasion, hunting for food and sport, as well as individual self protection. Because of this, the ability to keep and bear arms is a right, specifically cited and protected in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. However, despite this protection, and in outright defiance of that amendment’s call to secure the state, less than half of US homes have firearms in them. I believe this is due to the cost of firearms ownership, a lack of competition by firearms manufacturers, and the lack of access to ranges on which to shoot.

My friends, we have a crisis–no one can deny this. Our National Security is suffering: Chapter 13, United States Code Title 10 calls “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age …[and] female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” to be in the militia of the United States, yet less than half of these people would be able to bring a firearm to the fight, if called. Our personal security is suffering–and it is costing taxpayers: a recent article states that in one section of the country, residents pay approximately $1300 each to pay the salaries of their police force. Does anyone think that police services are getting better? Finally, hunting is suffering: the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation pegs the national participation rate of hunting at only 5% (link to PDF document here). Clearly we must act to bring the cost of firearm ownership down, in order to protect this Constitutional right.

To that end, I have come up with a number of proposals, which if enacted, would increase competition and bring down the cost , ensuring access to firearm ownership for all persons living in the United States, bolstering our National Security in the process. But first, let me state this: if you like the firearms you already own, you can keep them. No one is telling you that you must change firearms. I want to be clear about that. Now, on to my plan:

First, I would create the Firearm Bureau of Law Enforcement (FaBLE). This would be a federally operated office, with a cabinet-level secretary which would coordinate firearm sales, training, manufacture, and availability–virtually every aspect of firearm ownership. The FaBLE Secretary would be responsible for:

- Determining the minimum firearm package which qualifies under the new law, but as a minimum would include one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle (scoped). The secretary would determine which cartridge sizes qualify, as well as the minimum power scope.

- Ensuring adequate training in firearms for each person living in the United States by determining minimum range services which must be offered at local ranges and establishing a minimum concealed carry training curriculum.

- Establish personal ammunition storage standards, and ensure adequate supply of each qualifying cartridge is available.

- Establish minimum hunting license and permit requirements.

- Create, through FaBLE, a firearm/ammunition/training/hunting (FAiTH) exchange which would provide for cost-effective firearms, training, and ammunition, regardless of ability to pay.

Obviously, firearm ownership is not only a right, but a personal responsibility, and all persons in the US must accept that responsibility. To this end, each household would be required to purchase the minimum FAiTH package determined by the FaBLE Secretary. Subsidies would be available to households at or below 175% of the poverty level. These would be funded by eliminating fraud and waste in the existing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) programs, as well as various taxes on non-qualifying firearms and ammunition, elective guided big-game hunting expeditions, and training classes above and beyond the minimum training established by the FaBLE Secretary.

Please join me in supporting this important initiative. I’m sure we can all agree that this will transform the United States, and be an historic precedent.

One aspect of the Ft. Hood shootings that I have not seen any discussion about is that of jurisdiction–that is, how is Maj Hasan going to be tried for this crime.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a military lawyer, and am therefore not an expert in the details of this. However, I am a retired Air Force Master Sergeant. I spent about a year as the Additional Duty First Sergeant for two squadrons on two different bases. In that capacity, it was my job to advise the squadron commander on legal matters, among other things. I was the 1st Sgt when a member of my squadron was arrested and charged with a number of crimes including murder for hire. I also had to pick up a member of my squadron from the county jail following a DUI arrest downtown. Having said all that, I am not, as I stated previously, an expert on military law.

Civilians may not realize that members of the armed forces operate under two separate, sometimes parallel, legal systems. While we all, as American citizens, enjoy rights protected by our Constitution, members of the armed forces willingly restrict some of those rights. For instance, our free speech rights are rightly restricted while in uniform. No one would think that it is right for a military member to actively campaign for a candidate while wearing the uniform. Additionally, Constitutional protections are of little use while serving overseas. Chapter 47 of Title 10 USC establishes a separate legal system which applies to all military members, and applies to all places. It is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. (As an aside, the UCMJ applies to “Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.” Section 2 Art 2(9)) The UCMJ provides for legal jurisdiction, trials, sentencing, and describes punitive articles.  Strictly speaking, a military member who, say, is charged with DUI, may be tried, convicted, and sentenced in both a civilian court and under the UCMJ without violating double jeopardy.  However, it has been my experience that offenses committed off base are left to be punished off base.  Administrative action may be taken on base, but usually not punishment.

Keep the UCMJ in mind as you listen to the commentary from various major media sources. Chris Matthews recently wondered, on air, whether calling al-Qaida was a crime. Well, under the US Constitution, maybe not. However, under the UCMJ, it most certainly is illegal. Article 104 UCMJ, Aiding the Enemy, states (italic emphasis mine):

Any person who–

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

Al-Qaida is certainly an enemy of the United States. If Maj Hasan communicated with al-Qaida, whether through an intermediary or not, committed an offense punishable by death under the UCMJ.

Other UCMJ Articles that Maj Hasan may have violated include Art 94, Mutiny or Sedition; Art 116, Riot or Breach of Peace; and Art 118, Murder. (italic emphasis mine)

Art 94, Mutiny or Sedition

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Art 116, Riot or Breach of Peace

Any person subject to this chapter who causes or participates in any riot or breach of the peace shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.

Art 118, Murder

Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- –

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;

is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

President Obama, under Article 22, has the authority to convene a General Court Martial, and he should do that. The installation commander has the authority to do this as well; however, given the national significance of this crime, I think the President should show some leadership. This crime was perpetrated (allegedly) by a military member, on a military installation, largely against other military members. UCMJ has jurisdiction over this crime, and that’s how it should be handled. This should not, under any circumstances, be tried in the civilian court system.

I predict that no matter how it is handled, the major media outlets will continue to show concern for Maj Hasan’s rights, as well as concern for the Muslim community as a whole, while paying lip service to the military community.