A while ago, I read an article about how a professor of Constitutional Law felt that the Constitution was outdated. For some reason he discounted the WHY of the Constitution in favor of offering up it was created by old guys from a different era and that intelligent people of today can govern in a responsible manner. Here he makes the fundamental mistake in his argument. Assuming once the power is concentrated into the Executive Branch that branch will somehow remain in check. (remember we abandoned the Constitution so there is no longer any co-equal branches of government thing)
—Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.—
Yeah, I know….
How exactly would the states control the President? How is that working out for us now? Would it not be more the case that as the military becomes an arm of the Executive Branch, along with a national police force, that sooner or later we would either knuckle under or another civil war would break out? Seriously professor take a look around and see how things are working out for other nations. Are they in better financial state, more freedoms, more opportunity? In fact, isn’t it true as governments grow its citizen’s lives shrink?
But as the professor rambled on Michael Bloomberg’s insanity continues to give us examples of what a Napoleon like personality in power can result give us the exact opposite result.
Yesterday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and city officials unveiled a new initiative to limit supplies of prescription painkillers in the city’s emergency rooms as a way to combat what they described as a growing addiction problem in the region. Some critics, as documented by The New York Times, however, felt the move would unnecessarily hurt poor and uninsured patients who use emergency rooms as their primary care doctor. Needless to say, Mr. Bloomberg was not swayed by this line of argument.
“The city hospitals we control, so…we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor,’” the mayor said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. “Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect….There’s nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn’t going to suffer and it’s always the same group [claiming], ‘Everybody is heartless.’ Come on, this is a very big problem.”
In the same interview, Mr. Bloomberg stressed the initiative’s simple rationale is to prevent extra pills from piling up in the cabinets of New Yorkers who no longer need them, where they can pose a health risk if they’re abused.
“We talk about drugs, heroin and crack and marijuana, this is one of the big outbursts–and it’s a lot worse around the country than it is here. It’s kids and adults getting painkillers and using them for entertainment purposes, or whatever field of purposes, as opposed to what they are designed for,” he explained. “If you break a leg, you’re going to be in pain, nothing wrong with getting something that reduces the pain. But if you get 20 days worth of pills and you only need them 3 days, there’s 17 days sitting there. Invariably some of the kids are going to find them, or you’re going to take them and get you addicted.”
Mr. Bloomberg also argued the number of pain pills currently being prescribed had even contributed to an uptick in violent crimes outside of pharmacies from robbers looking to steal the drugs.
“You see there’s a lot more hold-ups of pharmacies, people getting held up as they walk out of pharmacies,” he explained. “What are they all about? They’re not trying to steal your shaving cream or toothpaste at the point of a gun. They want these drugs.”
Oh, okay. So what he’s saying is it is for the “good of the children” or something like that?? Tyranny couched inside the greater good argument. It gets tiring after awhile.
Of course Bloomberg explains that it will be HIS bureaucrats that will decide who will and who will not deserve the drugs. Can you imagine the challenges here? Think about the logic stream that brought Bloomberg to his decision. 1. We have dopers. 2. Dopers use drugs, both legally and illegally obtained. 3. Some of the drug use- not all mind you- comes from overuse of prescription drugs by a few people compared to the numbers who do right. 4. Doctors must be forced to limit allowing access to drugs by bureaucrats who are NOT doctors or dealing with the patient directly or reviewing a diagnosis to see if there is abuse. 5. Putting at risk the health and well-being of potentially hundreds of thousands of decent people seeking medical help. 6. And this will solve drug abuse and save children.
And you freaking idiots voted him back in…twice.