Well known Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once stated, “I am for the First Amendment from the first word to the last. I believe it means what it says.” In part, what it says is that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” To prove how serious the authors of the Bill of Rights were about this indispensable freedom, they gave Americans the ability to defend the right by force if necessary in the very next Amendment. Even given the historic support from the high court for the First Amendment and the means to defend it given by the Founders, this past week the Obama administration violated its oath to uphold the Constitution by issuing a decree abridging the First Amendment right to speech.
In a memo to private health insurers from a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the Obama administration issued a decree ordering them to stop informing Medicare beneficiaries that health reform legislation before Congress could hurt them and curtail their benefits if enacted. The memo went on to say that the government might take legal action against insurers that are mobilizing opposition to the legislation by sending “misleading and confusing” messages to seniors.
Say what you will about insurance companies, this is by no means a defense of them. It is instead a rebuke of an administration that is playing fast and loose with basic rights guaranteed to all Americans, including corporations. In the United States, corporations are separate legal entities that retain the same rights as individuals. Humana has as much right to speak out for or against federal legislation as I do. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have no power to abridge Humana’s right to free speech. Obama should know this, given that he is a constitutional lawyer.
Secondly, the decree smacks of fascism. Corporations do not exist in America to serve the interests of the state. Obama has this collectivist mindset, a lot like the previous administration, “you are for us or against us.” Any discord with the Administration’s positions and you may find yourself threatened with legal action. Perhaps the President is confused. Maybe he has let his takeover and running of GM, Chrysler, and AIG cloud his vision and he now thinks that he can dictate the terms of existence for all American companies. Unfortunately, few members of his own party have expressed any discomfort with the decree. In fact, Democratic Senator Max Baucus has urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. Not only is our government not listening to the people, it is now also attempting to stifle the peoples’ dissent.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
"It’s no wonder his approval rating continues to drop and Americans are taking to the streets in the millions to protest his policies."
I'm not going to address the main thread of the article at this point because I don't know what your sources are, and I have heard nothing about this. However, The first part of the quote above is actually wrong according to the latest polls, and the second part is at best grossly over stated. No "millions" have taken to the street. Even the Washington 9/12 gathering - the largest of all of them - had less than an estimated 100,000 in attendance unless, of course, if you chose to believe Glen Beck who put the number at something like half a million or more. In so doing he actually mis-quoted an estimate released by ABC news which claimed only something in the 10s of thousands. Or to say it another way, he lied.
Again, Obama's numbers are currently either holding steady or going up depending on which poll you choose to quote. And, even a majority of Republicans claimed to support the public option for health care insurance.
Well, I guess you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good rant.
B
2 - Kenn Jacobine
According to Pew Research, in April, 62% of the public approved of Barack Obama's performance as president and 26% disapproved. In August, just four months later, 52% approved of Obama's job performance while 37% disapproved. I think these numbers speak for themselves.
In totality, if you include all Tea Parties and other protests around the country there are millions of Americans protesting Obama.
3 - Jordan Richardson
I think these numbers speak for themselves.
Do you have any idea how fickle presidential approval ratings are?
Half those people are indeed protesting Obama, too, not his policies, not his intentions. They're protesting him.
4 - Jordan Richardson
Oh, and maybe just one teensy little link in the article would be good to, y'know, provide a source for people curious about what a "senior official" said in a "memo." It's not that I doubt what you're claiming, as all presidents violate most of your little amendments all the time (isn't it about time you guys updated those things?). It's just that I can't seem to find out where you're getting this from and it's quite a hefty accusation from abroad.
5 - Jordan Richardson
Neeevermind, found something:
This article in the Washington Post refers to it and to Republicans calling it a "gag order."
Apparently the memo was sent to Humana, specifically, and states the belief that the mega insurer was misleading people on Medicare. According to the Post, HHS "ordered them to stop and said they could face enforcement action for violating restrictions on communications between Medicare health plans and their members."
If you read on in the article, you find a statement from an HHS spokesperson that essentially raises the issue that they believe these communications from the insurance company violated CMS regulations. In other words, the personal information of some senior citizens was used inappropriately.
Of course, to Republicans this is all a violation of freedom of speech. You should be able to say whatever you want to whomever you want, even if it violates their privacy and desire to not be exposed to outright falsehoods.
6 - Kenn Jacobine
Jordan,
Not sure where you were going with this,
"all presidents violate most of your little amendments all the time (isn't it about time you guys updated those things?)."
Are you actually saying the First Amendment is insignificant and needs changing??
7 - Jordan Richardson
Are you actually saying the First Amendment is insignificant and needs changing??
Insignificant? Where are you getting that? Because I said "little amendments?" I do believe that your country makes an awful lot of out what is a "given" in other developed nations, yes. I could do without the trumpeting and the fanfare as relates to your amendments, but that's not something I'm overly concerned with.
I think I was pretty clear in saying that the amendments could be updated/changed, yes. This wouldn't be the first time I've said this around here, either.
The Founding Fathers, bless their slave-driving hearts, couldn't possibly have seen this far ahead and generally didn't expect the amendments to go without ever adapting for changing times.
To suggest that any document should be written in stone and thus interpreted as an undeniable statute for the rest of the life of the nation is a little archaic and ignorant to the natural evolution of time and society, I think.
Nashville's First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University conducts a public opinion poll regarding the First Amendment on an annual basis. In the 2000 poll, two out of three American adults said that they favoured the banning of hate speech. Of course, the problem is deciphering what hate speech is.
Then you've got all sorts of other legal corners, including libel and slander laws, that again alter the meaning of the First Amendment in ways that the Founding Fathers never anticipated.
So yes, it would seem prudent and ultimately practical to clarify the amendment(s).
8 - Jordan Richardson
Let's pull this back to the Humana issue for a second, though.
Humana receives federal funding to operate Medicare Advantage, does it not? This means that it must comply with federal law when providing official communications about Medicare Advantage. Therefore, CMS was well within its rights and well within the legal apparatus to proffer a cease and desist. This is no violation of Amendment rights at all.
Nevermind that Humana has a history of ripping off Medicare or overcharging on government health programs. I guess to guys like Kenn it's nice that they're (Humana) trying to convince everybody that they're actually now on the side of the patient after overcharging them all these years and bilking people out of their money over Medicare.
9 - Kenn Jacobine
Jordan,
In the first place the statist argument that the Constitution is a flexible ever changing document open to new developments is rubbish. What is the purpose of having a written constitution if government can reinterpret it to meet any and all contemporary circumstances? Instead the document has an amendment feature which has worked remarkably well over the years. It was used to ban slavery which yes was regrettably allowed under the original document.
Secondly, I don't necessarily count on polls to tell me how to think. Hate speech, as repugnant as it is, is protected free speech. You open a Pandora's box when you start regulating what people say. What about criticizing public officials or burning the U.S. flag? These matters are best left to the free market. People have a choice whether to read my blog or buy my product based on a lot of factors including my speech and conduct.
Thirdly, I said specifically in my article that I wasn't defending insurance companies. But, when you take away the rights of one segment of society you jeopardize the rights of all of us. The information Humana published was accurate according to the CBO.
10 - Jordan Richardson
What is the purpose of having a written constitution if government can reinterpret it to meet any and all contemporary circumstances?
Good question, as the government does this anyways. I think the first segment of your question is more important. What, indeed, is the point of having a written constitution? What is the point of constantly referencing an archaic document that is in constant need of update and change? It certainly gives some the consistency they thrive on, but something tells me society would not ultimately collapse were we to learn how to change the rules every now and then.
These matters are best left to the free market.
Implies there is a free market. You'll also note that I did not offer the poll to "tell you how to think." It's an example of the fluidity of society and public opinion and, in light of your above reference of presidential approval, remains especially relevant here. You suggest the "free market" remains the Decider, so to speak, as to how an allegedly free society operates. Really?
Hate speech is protected free speech, however it is not protected free speech in cases of defamation or incitement to riot if violence is considered to be imminent (the whole "clear and present danger" thing) or if it incites the commission of lawless behaviour. There's also greater regulation on "commercial speech," as you know, and copyright protection.
One clear example of how speech is regulated by the "free market" is the whole MPAA rating system. While this isn't a government thing, movies not rated by the MPAA's ridiculous standards face no release. The MPAA is also among the strictest bodies of censors in all First World countries. But I digress...Pandora's Box indeed.
But, when you take away the rights of one segment of society you jeopardize the rights of all of us.
Humana is a segment of society?
11 - Baritone
Jordan,
Nice work. I wrote my initial comment at around 2AM and didn't have the energy to delve into the meat of Kenn's article.
I agree with you that under the circumstances as regards Humana, this is NOT a First Ammendment issue. Whether the info that Humana communicated was correct or not, they have contractual obligations which prevent them from biting the hand that feeds them.
As to whether the info was in fact correct, I bet you could find others who would disavow its accuracy. All such estimates as to how much something of this nature will cost are up for grabs. One side says this, one says that. Nothing has been chiseled in stone as regards health care reform.
Kenn, Dave and others here have gotten on the fearmongering band wagon repeating anything and everything they hear (or imagine they hear) through whatever twisted grape vine they subscribe to.
Their dislike of Obama and their anger at having lost so badly last November has effectively destroyed any sense of propriety and honesty they may have possessed prior.
It enrages them that Obama is both highly intelligent and articulate. They felt far more comfortable with a president who clearly possessed neither intelligence nor communicative skills - sort of like a pet.
B
12 - roger nowosielski
"What, indeed, is the point of having a written constitution? What is the point of constantly referencing an archaic document that is in constant need of update and change? It certainly gives some the consistency they thrive on, but something tells me society would not ultimately collapse were we to learn how to change the rules every now and then."
Good point, Jordan. Perhaps it's the need the Yanks feel to anchor their Empire in the past - a fixed and immutable past - precisely because they have none to speak of (when compared to other nations).
The Brits seem to be doing well pretty good without a written document. Are they also as handicapped as we are when it comes to adopting to change as we are?
13 - roger nowosielski
"They felt far more comfortable with a president who clearly possessed neither intelligence nor communicative skills."
You forgot the most important point: and he ain't white.
14 - roger nowosielski
Which would make 'em all foam with envy and inferiority complex.
15 - roger nowosielski
I don't particularly think that Obama is the greatest gift from heaven; but I'm certain that he'd outscore the average town-hall protester by at least 20 IQ points.
And the worst thing of it is - the whitey knows it.
16 - Kenn Jacobine
Clearly, you guys have not retained my blogs longterm. When Bush was president I called him a war criminal, usurper, violator of constitutional rights, and liar. The problem is not any one person or party it is the two party oligopoly we have in this country masquarading as a political system. If Obama is to be defended and Humana is greedy then why doesn't he pull their mouth off the federal teet himself - cut all funding? Get over it guys, your hero, Obama is no better than Bush. federal bailouts to the rich, a secret war in Pakistan, and violating our constitutional rights. I haven't heard that Washington has repealed the Patriot Act since Obama took office? Have you.
17 - Kenn Jacobine
And of course Roger, being the typical liberal, has to throw in that I am a racist because he has no other intellectual ground to stand on.
18 - roger nowosielski
I am neither typical nor a liberal. And the "whitey" epithet wasn't directed at you.
Why would you assume that?
19 - roger nowosielski
Goes to show, Kenn, how little discriminating you are. It would seem that you, much more than I, can't escape thinking in rigidly-defined, narrow categories.
I thought you are an educator.
20 - Kenn Jacobine
In context the following quote of yours implies my attack on Obama is racially motivated:
"You forgot the most important point: and he ain't white."
21 - roger nowosielski
Wrong. I was addressing Jordan.
I believe the subject sentence in #13 was an excerpt from Jordan's comment.
22 - roger nowosielski
Pardon me. Baritone's (#11).
Same difference.
23 - Doug Hunter
Roger, your #13 and #15 surprise me. I thought you might be in agreement with me that this line of reasoning just pisses people off and has little to do with the issues at hand. Or perhaps we'll have to settle for this level of discourse until we get a nice safe white candidate in office and we can return to discussing issues.
Either way, I think it'd be an eye opening exercise to scan back through blogcritics articles and see just exactly who is concerned with Obama's race. I'd like to see who in the article or in the comments section brought up race, racism, or skin color (black/white) first in regards to Obama. I have my suspicions of who does it and I also have a gut feeling of why. Perhaps there is material for my first article there.
24 - El Bicho
Have you actually read the First Amendment because your whole premise is wrong since the Obama Administration is not Congress?
25 - roger nowosielski
I've done it on purpose, Doug. Let the cat come out of the bag.
Anyway, it's just another tack. And thus far, it seems to work. Think of it as a strategy. For unless you piss someone off, and royally, perhaps you'll never learn what they really think.