DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
The Opinion piece, Regulating ‘Mental Activity’ (WSJ 2-28-2011) disagrees with the latest judge, Gladys Kessler, who holds that Obama-Care is constitutional.
It’s time that the public understands the slippery thinking displayed in Wickard v Filburn — the legal case used by the Obama Administration and Judge Kessel to defend Obama-Care. It’s time that the thinking public read Wickard v Filburn. From this case has come the huge expansion of the federal government into so many aspects of American life.
The lack of logic which the judge employs is mind boggling. It’s time for rational thinking people to take up pen and write the judge, her boss and various associations that represent organizatons that have knowledge about “thinking”, “mental activity” the “mind” and the difference between doing an act and thinking an act. To consider action as the same as inaction wipes out all sorts of legal, ethical and psychological distinctions that have been around a thousand years or more.
The mental activity of decision making when a person thinks, “I will buy health insurance… or “I will not buy health insurance” is economic activity which the government under the Commerce Clause can regulate says Gladys Kessler of the D.C. district court. ”
The distinction between activity and inactivity is “of little significance,” Judge Kessler writes, “It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting’…Making a choice is an affirmative action whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin.”
Every organization of professionals that has some knowledge of mental activity — psychologists, psychiatrists, marriage and family counselors — needs to speak up and discuss what Judge Gladys Kessler says.
This is not just about Obama-Care and whether it is constitutional. Did the government of our Founders create a government whose reach includes “mental activity”?
Is the mental activity, “I will kill my neighbor..” the same as “I will not kill my neighbor” and if the decision is based on stealing my neighbor’s jewels — an economic activity — can the government take action against me for thinking thoughts about murder as opposed to the activity of taking steps and acting on my thoughts?
To repeat the judge’s words, The distinction between ACTIVITY and INACTIVITY is “of little significant” …. Think of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, murder… There is a huge difference between DOING the act and thinking about the act. For doing the activity of intentionally killing a person society punishes people and ostracizes them.
Let’s say that I believe that Judge Kessler is irrational and should be removed from her position as judge. Here I am engaging in mental activity. And, let’s say I act by writing a letter to her “boss”. By writing I am engaging specific, identifiable action to achieve a particular result. And let’s say I send money to professional associations such as the American Psychological Association (APA) to take up pen to comment on the lack of rationality shown by this judge.
In contrast, let’s say that my husband totally disagrees with me. And he takes no action except to think, “I’m taking no action and doing nothing.” Is his lack of action the same as my actions — just two sides of the same coin? When is LACK of action ever the same as ACTION? Judge Kessler thinks they are the same.
Remember Wickard, the farmer who kept 148 bushels of wheat and did not put them on the open market. That is the legal case, Wickard v Filburn, from where all this stretched to the edge of illogical thinking arose. The government relies on the Wickard decision to say that thinking about an action is the same as taking the action. This is a stretch that breaks the elastic. Read the case for yourself and think of how slippery the sloop is — from 148 bushels that were hoarded by one farmer for personal use to NOT buying a product that crosses state lines.
DrCameron Jackson@gmail.com
