Your Subtitle text

The Byzantine Pineapple (Revision 5; Part 2)


I)                    Argument

The mouthpiece continued.  “The aspect of adjudicating the legality of the mandate is but one aspect of adjudicating a composite view of the citizen going forward in the USA.  The Supreme Court leads the way in defining this composite view of the citizen vis-à-vis cases such as the individual mandate dictate case.  The Supreme Court can recognize the individual right of self-determination or the Supreme Court can side with those who purport that the perceived needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one.”

The insane lawyer continued.  “However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of an individual mandate being necessitated as legal via the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and also the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 legislation the Supreme Court must also recognize the logical consequence of the ruling.  Logic dictates that there is a portion of the population who will perceive the ruling as the Supreme Court adjudicating that the individual citizen has no rights at all that are not superseded by the Federal Government in times of peace versus in times of multi-country global warfare.”

“Logic also dictates that the framers of the legislation will seize upon the open door provided by them by the Supreme Court of the United States and that there will be more legislation put forth with the argument that the perceived needs of the many outweigh the individual rights of the one.  To paraphrase a currently unpopular phrase: Never let opportunities to seize more rights from citizens go to waste!”

A Supreme Court Justice interrupted.  “It would be well for the attorney to remember that Supreme Court adjudicates the legislation passed and the facts and circumstances of the lawsuit filed regarding the legislation.  One piece of legislation does not guarantee that any other piece of legislation will be enacted.  The relevance to the legislation passed is the argument the attorney should be pursuing to make a case supportive of the brief filed.”

The Prosecutorial lawyer rubbed hands together before speaking.  “That’s the rub, as the colloquialism goes.  Isn’t it?  The Court’s interpretation is in the strictest manner of interpretation the brief and also in thinking about people as pieces of paper and statistics in a chart.”  The shyster turned to the defense table.  “If the Court will allow some leeway towards creative demonstration this point shall be illustrated with the assistance of some props.”

The Chief Justice stated “The Court will allow some leeway but be warned that it is very little leeway being granted.  There is very little temperament for argumentative theory.”

The Confounding Prosecutor replied “While there may be little temperament for the argumentative theory the nature of the case forces a request for leeway for time necessary for argumentative theory.  The question of the Constitutionality of the individual mandate to purchase Health Insurance is not so simplistic that it can be addressed in a short period of time.“

“Indeed, the question extends to the structure of the Federal Income Tax Code as well as the organization of the funding Federal Budget.  The Federal Tax Code and the organization of the Federal Budget are not based upon equitable application among citizens but rather upon Supreme Court approved inequity application among citizens. 

The Chief Justice looked up and down the bench at the other Justices before addressing the Attorney.  “We have read the brief filed with the Court.  For the fairness of the public discourse the Court will allow the oral argument to be made.”

“Thank you, your Honors” spoke the tongue twister.  “To understand the composite legal, political, social and economic aspects of the argument there are a couple of requirements.  The first requirement is that the Justices disassociate themselves from prior adjudications such as specific past rulings on the Commerce Clause or other legal matters.  The requirement instead is that the Justices focus on the Big Picture of American society and the concept of long term social ramifications of not only the ruling on the Individual mandate to buy Health Insurance but looking at the ruling in the context of other rulings that the court has made regarding legislation affecting American Society.”

“The second requirement is the use of some exhibits.”  The attorney proceeded to pull out of a bag on the floor and to lay on the evidence table the following items stating what the items were as he placed them on the table.  “Here we have:

A)     The Declaration of Independence.

B)      A pineapple.

C)      A plastic grenade.

D)     A machete.

E)      A cutting block.

F)      A bottle of Coca Cola.

G)     Two completely swathed baby dolls. 

H)     A tray of evenly grown green grass.

I)        A Harvard Business School Case Study regarding some Bonds held by the Travelers insurance Company.

J)       Tables showing the top 200 Prescription drugs used in the US by Sales Dollars for 2009.

K)      A historical table comparing the United States Population size against Deaths in the United States.

L)       A table showing the BMI weight definition of citizens by each state in the United States.

M)   Congressional Budget Office publishes National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data .

N)     An Economic Formula to be explained later.


The argument is constructed in the following manner:

1)      Philosophical Construct

2)      The Declaration of Independence

3)      The Right of the Individual

4)      The Property Right of the Individual

5)      The Pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

6)      Byzantium

7)      The Failure of Pure Capitalism

8)      The Failure of  Social Welfare Legislation

9)      The punitive inequitable construct of both the tax code and Current Social Welfare Legislation

10)   The Flat tax

11)   Conclusion


1)      Philosophical construct

The lawyer held up the covered doll for all to see.  “Here we have a baby” the conniver spoke.  “Let me ask a rhetorical question here.  Can anyone tell me anything about this baby?  Can you tell me the gender or race or economic background of this child?  You can’t, can you?”

The mouthpiece held the other baby doll up.  “And here we have another child.  Can either of you tell me the race, sex or economic conditions of this child?  You can’t, can you?”  The lawyer held both dolls up.  “All that we know is that there are two human children here.”

“Now” the esquire educated “Can any of you tell me whether these children, these dolls, came from the same factory?  The way these dolls are clothed one cannot tell whether the manufacturer of the dolls is the same.  They could both be, for example, made by Mattell or by a Japanese or Chinese conglomerate…or they could have been made by hand by a Native American who lives on a reservation somewhere or maybe not on a reservation.  It doesn’t matter.  What does matter, your Honors, is:  Which is the better child?”

A Supreme Court Justice barked “It is not the position of the court to determine whether one child is better or not.  It is the position of the Court to determine whether the legislation before the court as written in this or in any case that the court decides to review offers equal treatment of all children and indeed all citizens, as well as equal opportunity.  Your example had best be progressing somewhere beyond testing the patience of the court.”

“That’s the historical adjudication of the court, isn’t it?” The Cahn conned.  “That all children and all citizens are provided equal treatment and equal opportunity.  Indeed that is a philosophical basis for much social legislation.  That all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, or other factors are treated equally in the United States of America.”  The attorney raised both dolls up.  “With that philosophical basis in mind while viewing these two children I ask the following question: How is it determined that both of these children have equal opportunity?  This question is asked because it is the basis for the argument for the mandate that all citizens be required to purchase Health Insurance so that these two children represented here and all other citizens can be afforded both equal treatment and an equal opportunity to health care in the United States.”

The Cahn continued “It is stated that the Constitution of the USA is a living document.  This means that the legal framework is an evolving system.  It means that what once was the prevailing thought may not always be the prevailing thought.  Let’s take, for example, the birth of these children.  The presumption is that it is the right of the children, post abort-able conception, to be afforded prenatal care and birth in a hospital.  But let’s assume, for arguments sake, that we travelled through time to the date of 1900.  What, with respect to these children, would we find?”

The arguer babbled on.  “One item we would find is that every President of the United States up to 1900 and indeed up until 1924 with the birth of the 39th President of the United States, President James Earl Carter, is that no President of the USA was born in a hospital.  Now, undoubtedly there were some medical services being provided by someone but the point is this: There was a time in the USA when the majority of the citizens existed and were born and died without Health Insurance being provided…and the society of the USA grew to the point that it is at today.  I ask the Court…in a common sense manner…how is it that 100 years ago the US Society grew and thrived and was able to fight World Wars and etc. without the mandated requirement that all citizens be beholden to a yoke of buying Health Insurance and yet today, because of an act of Congress, this yoke is thrown upon all citizens?  How did the citizens of the past exist without such a mandate?  How is it a mandated necessity for existence that all citizens must have Health Insurance to exist?”

Defense Attorney Troll interjected “Your Honors this is a ridiculous argument.  The mortality rate of infants was much higher in 1900 and the costs of giving birth and indeed health care as a whole have grown so much that it is onerously burdensome to all citizens so that the only way to provide equal opportunity to health care for all citizens is to pool the risk of all citizens to afford the Health Insurance required to provide equal care to all citizens.  If one polled the citizens of 1900 they undoubtedly would have preferred to have universal medical coverage over the systems in place in 1900.  Indeed, to use an example from art, in The Godfather II, Vito Corleone stares at his son Fredo suffering from pneumonia without the ability to get medical assistance from a hospital.  Can one believe that Vito Corleone would not, at the turn of the century, preferred to have proper medical assistance for his son?  Would not every parent in a similar situation at the turn of the twentieth century have wished the same for their sick children?” 

The Troll held up a newspaper headline saying “Polls today show that there is less opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and also the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 than there was at the time of the passage of the laws.  These two Congressional Acts are improvements in American Society for all.”

“So states the arguments of those who would have one believe that a mandated purchase of Health Insurance is the ONLY solution to both the rising medical costs and the lack of health care for all citizens of the United States” the Cahn offered.  “The arguments offered are arguments of perceptions of reality not based upon a fact of individual right as a citizen but a perception of crowd bias. 

“The first argument is partially valid.  Given a preference of either having medical care from the medical profession for illnesses such as pneumonia versus not having medical care provided the care would be chosen over a lack of care.  But the question not posed in the scenario provided is whether the same parents would desire to have Health Insurance mandated upon them upon threat of either fines and\or incarceration.  The child Fredo survived pneumonia in The Godfather and so have many other citizens survived many other illnesses without direct medical community care.  But the movie did not portray Vito Corleone with a loaded gun at his head to force Vito to get his child Fredo medical treatment.”

“The question not posed in the Corleone example is whether the parent would prefer to have Health Insurance or medical treatment.  Medical treatment from the medical community can still be provided without the existence of Health Insurance.  If no Health Insurance existed Medical Treatment would still occur.  Vito Corleone was not made this offer he could not refuse!”

“The latter argument of the use of polling data to justify the Constitutionality of the Acts mandating the purchase of health care insurance is a very clear example of the basing an arguments construct upon a perception of crowd bias versus the individual right of a citizen.  Whatever the sample size polled, whatever the questions asked by the polling organization…the argument is that the question of the right of the individual is determined by the publicized result of the poll.”

“A publicly published poll should hardly be the matter of the determination of the rights of a citizen.  Who can say how many times the poll was taken to get the desired results that were published?”

The Cahn job ran on.  “In the United States history at various times there have been probably more people who would be swayed by public opinion that slavery is a good thing for America.  Depending on one’s situation the pervasive economic argument of the time was that there is a direct economic benefit to society as a whole for slavery to continue.  The same is true for forcing American Indians onto various reservations and for the annexing of lands that the Indians lived on.  Public opinion in some major cities undoubtedly ran in favor of the Federal Government taking these lands or for the continuation of slavery.  Indeed the good folks in power in Washington, DC, certainly saw no issue with reworking treaties with Native Americans…even if the Native Americans did not want the treaties reworked.”

“Here is another example of the misuse of polling data to make decisions: in 1938 polls in Germany showed great public support for the actions of the Nazi party.  Does that mean that Nazism should have been allowed to succeed because public polls in 1938 stated that Nazism had broad support?”

The Prosecution prattled further.  “Indeed it is quite humorous that the Defense even brings up citizenry polling in the argument of legality of the right of the individual.  This is humorous in the respect that, despite criticism of the Educational System in the USA, there are actually many educated citizens who recognize the construction of polling data and media dissemination of information to prove a point as the construct of bias versus the purported representation of the facts of a case or the rights of the individual.” 

“Listen to the phraseology of the Defense.  The argument is that polls today show that there is less opposition to the Congressional acts.  The Defense does not state the specific question asked the people polled to come to that conclusion.  Nor does the Defense point out, for example, that per the results of the poll, that 30% to 50% of the US population, somewhere between 50,000,000 to 150,000,000 million citizens, disagree with the dictates of the bill.  Like with slavery and with relegating American Indians to reservations the argument is that that societal good is better than the rights of the individual.”

The Cahn raised the dolls again.  “If these two children are adults who disagree with the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health care insurance and who also disagree with the punitive measures built in to the bills as punishment for refusal to cooperate to buy a product they do not want and they are not polled does that mean that their opinion is not necessary?  How is it guaranteed that their individual rights are accounted for? One question before the Court is whether the Court rules by fiat of public opinion poll or upon the rights of the individual.”

“The Court is well aware that this is a Court of Law and not a Court of Public Opinion” the Chief Justice admonished.  “The Court is also aware this argument is going nowhere fast.”

“The argument is a bit slow but it takes a little time to establish certain parameters” the Cahn conned.  “The upshot of the argument is this:

Just as prior Court rulings legitimizing slavery and also the annexation of lands of the Indians set the stage for violence with respect to the rights of the individual the Court needs to recognize that punitively mandating Health Insurance by declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and also the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 Constitutional sets the stage for violent insurrection in the United States of America.”

“That is a bold statement that the Prosecution cannot possibly prove” the Chief Justice stated.  “The Prosecution is arguing speculation.”

“The Prosecution is comfortable with the conclusion drawn and the construct of the argument is to point out that there are between 50,000,000 and 150,000,000 citizens who view the individual mandate to be a rejection of the right of the individual to choose a way of life without government interference.  For the issue is the enforcement through punitive measures.  When that large a population size feels government coercion for something they do not believe in…on top of coercion of other legislative matters that infringe on the rights of the individual…the offended population will ultimately react angrily.” the Cahn spoke with conviction.  Raising the dolls again the arguer argued “This conclusion comes from recognizing, with respect to these two representatives of infancy, the court has moved society to a point where:

a)      The rights of the individual to their body and mind have been annexed by the Federal Government under the guise of protection of the individual and also the perceived societal good achieved by the annexation of the body and mind by the Federal Government.

b)      The property rights of the individual have been annexed by the Federal Government under the guise of the perceived societal good of any annexation.

The issue is that the combination of both primary political parties in the USA, over time, has constructed an Empire over the Citizens of the United States.  This Empire is a continuously growing byzantine network of laws, proclamations and decrees that ultimately are wielded at the whim of whatever party is in power at any one point in time rather than being wielded in a manner of equity to all citizens.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States has been complicit in the construction of this Byzantine Empire.  This complicity comes from the continual agreement by the Court to certify the Byzantine Empire as legal. 

“What exists now in the USA is a political\legal system that over time has been built like MS-DOS has continually been built into the various forms of Windows software.  The architecture design of the system lends itself to continuous viruses exploiting the architectural design rather than being a closed system that isolates the system from exploitive viruses.”

“The result is the case before the court today regarding the individual mandate to purchase health care insurance.  The sales pitch from the government is that the total legislation and the sub-mandate will provide health care for all.  The reality is that the bill imposes a requirement for citizens to purchase Health Insurance…not to provide health care.  Enforcement of the requirement to purchase Health Insurance is punitive in nature.  Comply, or face the penalty.”

“King George of Great Britain acted in a similar manner.  His regime imposed punitive measures upon the colonies that mandated either compliance or face the penalty.  This led to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights of the United States.”

“Today, the citizens of the United States are not subjected to the loss of personal and property rights by a single King George.  The citizens of the United States are subjected to an increasingly virus ridden system that is eliminating the personal and property rights of the citizens.”

“The Democratic and the Republican parties act as Microsoft Windows code engineers.  The parties actually build the virus into the software code.  Citizens are required to purchase this virus laden version of Windows, and to continuously pay for the upgrades.  While some benefits of the software are received by some users the majority of the benefit, in terms of financial receipts, goes to the Microsoft executives (politicians and friends) and the oligarchic few who own Microsoft stock (PACs and special interest groups).”

2)      The Declaration of Independence

“The Declaration of Independence states three unalienable rights.  These stated rights are: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration reads that these rights are among rights that are endowed by The Creator. The Declaration further states That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

The Declaration of Independence also states that all men are created equal.  The Declaration of Independence of Independence does not state that after birth all men remain equal or that all men will live the same lives or that all men will have the same value systems.  The Declaration of Independence also does not state that all men will view Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the same manner.

The Declaration of Independence states that Government is instituted to secure the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration of Independence also states that when any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future…The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

 How did the signers of The Declaration of Independence recognize and define the visage of Tyranny over the States?  Among the list of Facts:

a)      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

The public good is a very nebulous term.  However, one could argue that the laws passed for immigration in the USA were passed for reasons of the public good.  So were the Acts requiring the building of the Border Fence with Mexico.  Certainly the health care bill was passed for the public good, was it not?

The Arizona law that the Governor of Arizona signed to allow authorities within the state to request citizenship identification from people arrested for suspected criminal behavior was signed into law because the immigration policy of the United States is not being equitably enforced.  Some people who reside illegally in the US are deported but, as a percent of the whole, it would take over 100 years to deport the illegal residents in the USA today. 

Laws for building a border wall have been passed by prior Legislative sessions.  Yet, despite this legal mandate, the border wall is not being built.

During the Reagan Administration there was an amnesty for people residing illegally in the USA with the politicians of both parties stating that this amnesty was one time offer.  Yet, in today’s society the one time offer is under threat to become a two-timing offer.  If the argument fits the desired political favor for a political party then it is pursued at all costs. 

The Governors of the States attempted to address the issue by passing laws to assist in dealing with immigration law enforcement but the Federal Government has acted to suspend the laws that the States have passed.

The point is, without bringing in a series of examples, that laws are being selectively enforced.  If the Administration can use a law to further an agenda then the law is enforced.  If the law does not further the agenda of the Administration then the law is ignored.

b)      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures

Where is the public record of the meetings that the Federal Government is engaging in with respect to Issues such as, TARP, Health Care Reform, Stimulus, and other social welfare programs?  Former Speaker Pelosi of the House of Representatives is famously quoted as saying “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.

For the bill to have been written some assembly had to take place.  To create multiple bills over thousands of pages in length there must have been a series of meetings that took place.  Where is the Public Record of such meetings of who attended the meetings and what debate was held and what agreements were made to buy votes? 

The fog of controversy can only exist if the legislation is constructed at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records.  The only reason that there is a fog of controversy is due to the actions of those who constructed the legislation. 

This is but one example of the way the Legislative and Administrative Branches of Government have constructed an empire of legislation creation.  The right of the citizen is to allow for public debate over proposed legislation.  Any piece of legislation thousands of pages in length should be afforded time for full review to be crafted in a true bi-partisan manner.

c)       He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

A parade of legislated New Offices of Federal Government has been created.  These Offices continue to grow in size and power.  The majority of the Offices have a purpose in mind that can be expressed in the following manner: Increasing budget and staff requiring more and more tax dollars from the citizenship to create and administer rules that the citizenship must follow or else the citizenship will face punitive measures.  The taxes and fees required to sustain this massive Administration eats out the substance of the people.

The Executive branch has added a series of Offices colloquially known as czars that are constructed to bypass the Congress.  This practice did not start with the current Administration but with past Administrations.  This Administration just exploded the practice of czar appointment.  This practice is a practice of the both Democratic and Republican parties.

d)      For suspending our own Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The Health Care Bill established panels that make de facto law.  The EPA is now making de facto law.  The laws that these panels are creating are not reviewed by the Legislature.  These panels declare their proclamations to be legislatively empowering over all citizens.  There are no limits to what the panels can punitively proclaim. 

The purpose of Congress and the Executive Branch is to enact and enforce the laws of the nation.  It is not the purpose of the branches of Federal government to create other departments that setting law.  If the Congress and the Executive branch establish commissions to propose regulations these regulations need to be certified by a session of Congress for the regulations to become law.

Congress has abdicated their power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.  It is not the duty of Congress to abdicate this power.  It is the duty of Congress to pass the legislation enforced in America.

Depending on the perspective one has upon the actions of both political parties that operate the branches of Federal Government of the United States it is argued that both parties have constructed a Byzantine Empire whereby various actions of the government resemble, more and more, the actions of those in power in Britain in the 1700’s whose deeds led to the Declaration of Independence.  The direct facts are different but the facts of the situation are the same.

The primary fact of the Byzantine Empire is that the Empire is designed to be punitive to the citizens of the Empire by enforcement of the ceding of the personal and property rights of the individual to the government. Comply or face the penalty.  This is clearly not Government securing the right of the individual.”

3)      The Right of the Individual

“What is the right of individual to exist with self determination to engage in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?” the Attorney asked.  “The way that the Supreme Court has been adjudicating the right of the individual to make their own determinations about their body is now disappearing.  The perception of many citizens is that the Government believes that the Government owns the bodies of the citizens; that the citizens do not have the right to determine how to live life…or to do…as the citizen chooses.”

Cahn conned “The deterioration of the right of the individual starts with the demonization of the right to enjoy whatever vices the individual chooses to enjoy.  Not every individual enjoys the same vice but undoubtedly some people enjoy some vice.  One fact that should be very clear is the following: Whether vices or abortion are either legal or illegal these activities will continue to occur.  Many citizens in any population seem to consider the right to engage in these activities as a right that Government should be securing for them instead of demonizing them for enjoying.

The public display of Charlie Sheen provides an excellent case to illustrate the point.  By public accounts Charlie Sheen was making $2,000,000 per every new episode of Two and a Half Men.  Assume that Charlie Sheen pays taxes of 30% per every new episode of Two and a Half Men.   This means that the Federal Government receives $600,000 of Charlie Sheen’s earnings per each episode that airs.

The show has been on television for 9 years, and is now in syndicated rerun.  Millions of people in the USA choose to watch the TV show (your barrister not included). 

As long as Charlie Sheen does not physically harm another individual then why should he or other adults he associates with be demonized for their behavioral patterns?  One can argue that Charlie Sheen is doing physical damage to himself and potentially others by the activities he engages in or by the substances he may or may not have ingested but who are any of us to judge his personal behavior?

One can turn on the information networks and see American football players bash into each other.  One can turn on a show such as Jackass and see the protagonists engage in behavior that very likely will cause long term health issues.  One can watch Mixed Martial Arts and watch participants engage in behavior that is possibly damaging to the long term health of the participants.  Why is it legal for these athletes and entertainers (and other citizens who engage in amateur behavior that mimics these professionals) to engage in destructive behavior yet the recreational exploits of Charlie Sheen or others with a similar morality of Charlie Sheen?  The legal systems divides society into good and bad based upon a morality clause judgment.

Another activity that people can engage in is to take the advice of the medical community about the various drugs that the community has managed to get certified as legal and beneficial to one’s health.  It doesn’t take much research to get a historical perspective of the drug Rofecoxib better known by the trade names Vioxx, Ceoxx, and Ceeoxx.  For five years (199-2004) the drugs were legal and were pushed on society by doctors. 

At the time of withdrawal Rofecoxib had a history of 80,000,000 prescriptions globally.  Per the citation needed statement in Wikipedia about the drug:

FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.

In other words, the medical community was happy to prescribe 80,000,000 people globally a drug that may cause the drug user heart attack.  The medical community feels no compunction about engaging in this behavior.  This is the same medical community that vilifies the alleged substance use (or potential abuse) of Charlie Sheen.

It does not take too much research to find that drug companies are replacing existing medicines with new drugs with minor changes in the formulation to get new patent protection to be able to charge patients or insurance companies more money.  It does not take much research to figure out that drug companies are not interested in developing new drugs for limited use.  The drug companies are interested in developing new drugs to accomplish what the drug companies accomplished with Rofecoxib: Having 80,000,000 people around the globe pay the drug companies a profit for being hooked on the drug.  This is the same medical community that vilifies the alleged substance use (or potential abuse) of Charlie Sheen.

Assuming that Charlie Sheen engaged in the behavior of currently illegal vice (or, potentially legal vice in certain areas of the United States) what does this speak towards the argument of vice demonization?  Obviously Charlie Sheen has enjoyed a business career that many would be jealous of in terms of money and acting roles.  If Charlie Sheen (and others with less notoriety…unless you believe that Charlie Sheen is the only person who engages in this behavior) are able to achieve so much while engaging in vice then how horrible can vice actually be?

Listen to the start of every NFL Football and the chances are that the song Welcome to the Jungle by Guns ‘n’ Roses is played at the start of the game.  This song was written and performed by heroin users and every time the song plays there is supposed to be a royalty paid to someone who owns the rights to the recording.  It appears that not only Charlie Sheen but other citizens have performed well economically despite using illegal recreational drugs.

It’s humorous to listen to TV pundits’ state that Charlie Sheen is a poor parent or a train wreck waiting to happen followed up with the statement that Charlie Sheen proves the point by admitting he used drugs.  Look at the chart below of legal drug use in the USA and ask yourself who isn’t using drugs?

Contrast this to Wall Street executives and corporations who have scammed the public.  Whose behavior is truly criminal: The Charlie Sheen’s or The Executive’s who legally profit from causing the economic crisis or who run Ponzi schemes that “Madoff” with investor’s money or with the drug company executives who market legal drug addiction or other business people who seek to profit not from creating a good or service and selling the good or service but from finding a way to empty the wallets of people to the greed addiction of the business people?

Addiction takes many forms: Medical Substances, Alcohol, Gambling, Shopping, Money, Video Gaming, Political Power, Sex, Cosmetic Surgery, and other forms of addiction.  Obviously some people ruin their lives on vices but obviously many people do not.  The issue is that all adult citizens have unalienable rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as the citizen sees fit.  This is not a right defined by how others see fit.  If a citizen screws up then the citizen should pay the penalty for screwing up.  But, for those who enjoy vice that the government has passed laws making the vice illegal, the Byzantine Empire drives a wedge into society.  The Byzantine Empire fractures society by demonizing the various parts of society.

This Byzantine Empire demonization breeds a criminal society indulging to those who desire vice.  This Byzantine Empire demonization builds a prison system filled with both suppliers and users of vice.  The Byzantine Empire demonization network fills society with messages stating comply with the acceptable thought process with respect to vice or face the penalty.  The Byzantine Empire now has constructed a legal framework for taking personal property from citizens for enjoying vice via civil asset forfeiture laws.  Then the Byzantine Empire demonization states that citizens need to look elsewhere than at the Byzantine Empire for the fracturing of society! This is a very self serving argument.

For those concerned about an explosion of, say, drug addiction by the decriminalization of vice it is asked that they look at American society and the chart below and think about the millions of doses of Ritalin, ED drugs, Flomaxx, NSAID’s, Statins, and other drugs taken daily and definitively state that the USA is not already drug addicted.  The chart below lists the top 200 prescription drugs in the USA in 2009.  How is it that the millions of doses taken daily by the population are “OK” and are a sign of “healthy behavior” but that the alleged actions of Charlie Sheen are not? How is it that the millions of doses taken daily by the population are “OK” and are a sign of “healthy behavior”…but that the actions of tobacco smokers and people classed overweight by a BMI chart some organization put together are not?  It is “OK” because The Byzantine Empire states to the population that this logic is “OK.”

Taking a look at the table data in another perspective of a “linear average cost per day” and “dosages” per day the top 20 drugs are recalculated in the table below:


Product Manufacturer

Revenue ($)

dose amount

 cost per dose

Annual # of doses

daily # of doses

 per internet search

 per internet search


assuming 1 dose\day


 Lipitor Pfizer 

 $   7,549,791,000

10 mg





 Nexium AstraZeneca 

 $    6,303,553,000

40 mg





 Plavix Bristol-Myers Squibb/sanofi-aventis 


75 mg





 Advair Diskus GlaxoSmithKline 


Top of Form

250/50mcg 180ds Diskus

Bottom of Form





 Seroquel AstraZeneca 


25 mg





 Abilify Otsuka 


15 mg





 Singulair Merck/Schering-Plough 


10 mg





 Actos Takeda 


30 mg





 Enbrel Amgen 


50 mg dose





 Epogen Amgen 


1 ml





 Remicade Johnson & Johnson


Top of Form

100mg 20mL 

Bottom of Form





 Crestor AstraZeneca


20 mg





 Avastin Genentech


400mg 1x16ml Vial Cytotoxic





 Neulasta Amgen


0.6 ml





 OxyContin Purdue


1 mg





 Cymbalta Lilly


60 mg





 Effexor XR Pfizer


150 mg





 Lexapro Forest


20 mg





 Lovenox sanofi-aventis


80 mg





 Zyprexa Lilly


7.5 mg




Column Totals






In the straight line analysis there are certainly a couple of assumptive flaws (i.e. not all drugs are taken 1 dose per day) but the point is easy to see: Citizens in the USA do a lot of drugs.  For the top 20 drugs there is an average of 1 dose being taken by 25% of the population daily. Factor in all the other prescription drugs and all the Over The Counter drugs and all the Recreational Drugs and it is easy to see the unscientifically proven conclusion that it is harder to find a person in the USA not taking drugs than it was for Diogenes to find an honest person using his lantern.

Many of the prescribed drugs have side effects.  The theory of preventative prescription of drugs is that the ingestion of a drug such as a statin will reduce (but not eliminate) the risk of cholesterol induced medical trauma of the body AND that this continual preventative ingestion is better for the individual over the potential increased risks from the known side effects.  The choice made to focus on one single risk factor while increasing other risk factors is considered proper health care. 

Preventative Drug Prescription Usage with potential side effects is considered a proper societal way to enjoy the unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness while Recreational Drug Use with potential side effects is NOT considered a proper societal way to enjoy the unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Federal Government has made this decision for each citizen.  The Federal Government owns the unalienable rights. 

This is NOT Government securing these rights. The problem is that Governments are instituted among Men TO secure these rights.”

The 2009 Revenue for the top 20 drugs is $74B.  In a context the maximum revenue of drug #21 on the list is below drug #20.  The data is certainly available but in terms of prescription drug cost in the USA the value is possibly between $200B and $300B annually.  If the notion is that all citizens receive health care then the cost for the drugs will be in this ball park.

If a Health Insurance System is used to pay for these drugs then the costs go up.  The costs go up because there is a series of human interaction transactions between billers and re-billers and supplemental insurance and there are various operating and marketing and profit costs that get applied to each purchase.  If the Federal Government just paid for all prescriptions direct and negotiated prices direct instead of a series of risk filled middlemen (insurance proceeds are invested with risk) then the drug cost to the country is know.

What makes more Common Sense: Paying for citizens prescription drugs straight from tax dollars….or engaging in a Byzantine System of collecting tax dollars from all citizens and to do Means Testing of all citizens and the issuing of credits to some citizens requiring the filing of many kinds of paperwork…all of which sets up a system of billing and re-billing and credits applied and donut hole gaps and other sorts of cost increasing steps?

A sad thing can be realized by Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and also the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010.  For all the thousands of pages of legislation written in archaic legalese there is no analysis like this in any of the thousands of pages.  If this kind of analysis about costs and payments of prescription drugs alone has not been done then how is it likely that the thousands of pages of legislation are going to actually solve the issue of providing health care to the citizens of the United States? 

As time marches forward and more laboratory experiments are conducted and more chemicals are created with which people will experiment it seems a reasonable conclusion that someone will want to experiment with a substance in an unintended manner…and the experiment may lead to the discovery of a new trend with the substance that becomes a recreational craze.  Or it may be that people enjoy drinking soda pop and smoking cigarettes or eating candy and no matter how much demonizing of vice the Federal Government does people will still act in a vice-enjoyment manner…just as when abortions were illegal the commission of abortions did not go away…and making alcohol illegal did not make the use of alcohol go away.  Why continue to penalize humans for being human?

What makes more Common Sense: Continuing to incarcerate citizens and to take citizens property vis-à-vis civil asset forfeiture laws and to divided society and to set up gun battles via Government making illegal actions that many citizens obviously enjoy…or establishing a system that doesn’t demonize citizens or incarcerate citizens or take citizens property for vices acted upon by consenting adults? 

The Declaration of Independence states That to secure the rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Governments are instituted among Men.  Continuing to argue a case that it is OK to take all kinds of prescription drugs which may kill citizens (such as Vioxx was) or to say that it is OK to engage in behavior (such as NFL Football or the TV Show Jackass) that are designed to destroy parts of the physical body but to demonize a segment of the population and to punitively go after this segment of society in an unwinnable war falls into a certain definition of insanity: Insanity is defined as continuing to repeat the same behavior over and over again expecting a different result.  There will be no different result from the Drug War selectively chosen against a few while promoting drug use to the total population.

With no specific definition by the Court as to the right of the individual to enjoy whatever substances the individual chooses to ingest the Court has left the door open for legislators to add more legislation defining what proscribed behavior is acceptable for the social welfare of the USA.  Failure to comply with proscribed behavior is dealt with punitively.  Punitive action over the right of the individual to do as the individual pleases with their body infringes on the rights of the individual.  How long will it be before Coca-Cola is banned because the perceived social welfare of ingesting the product is greater than the right of the individual to choose what to ingest since some special interests groups put forth an argument that Coca Cola causes diabetes or other health issues and then the argument is translated into Court approved legislation?  The country is continuing down a path of deterioration of the rights of the individual to self determination of the use of their own body.

If the Court allows the continuation of this deterioration of the rights of the individual of self determination versus a perceived societal and personal good right the court system can expect a societal backlash.   The Court is allowing the perceived good to not only outweigh the personal and property rights of the individual but the Court is allowing the enforcement of the perceived good to be done in a punitive manner against the populace that does not happen to see the perceived good in the same manner of those arguing the perceived the good.”

“The Court perceives some dramatic accusations without basis being evidenced” Justice S intervened.  “The Court perceives that the argument being made is that, for example, murder should be allowed for the imposition of punitive measures upon those convicted of the crime of murder is an infringement upon the rights of the individual to commit murder.  In this case the rights of the individual outweigh the societal good allowing murder without punishment.  The argument is weak.”

“The argument is not one of the individual right for an individual to commit an act against another individual and to suffer punitive consequences under the law” Cahn countered.  “The argument is that the Federal Government is applying punitive measures upon the individual citizen just by the existence of the citizen.  The argument is also that the door is now open to more punitive actions against citizens for actions taken for the citizen’s enjoyment of what others perceive to be vices. 

The baby dolls were raised.  “You see, going back to the original argument with respect to these babies for example, the argument is that somehow the birthing process has changed to a degree that bearing a child in a womb and birthing has become too expensive to be done on its own.  The pregnancy and birthing process has become too costly to be performed without Health Insurance.   Mind you, the argument is not about the fact that female humans, just like other females of species, are physically capable of birthing without prenatal care or the existence of a hospital delivery room.  Also, the argument is not about whether there are doctors and nurses’ available or medical staff available or whether there are drugs available.  The argument is about punitively mandating the purchase of Health Insurance.”

The pettifogger fogged more.  “I’d like anyone in this room to offer up the names of all babies that were delivered by Health Insurance.  The doll props were raised again.  “What is meant is, with respect to these children, which child was delivered by a doctor or a midwife or etc. and which one was delivered by Health Insurance?” 

“Excuse me while I wet my whistle” the shyster spoke.  The Coca Cola bottle was opened and a sip was taken.  The attorney uttered an “Ahhh” of refreshment.  “You know” the mouthpiece mouthed “I am intelligent enough to know that human beings help deliver babies.  The non physical entity titled Health Insurance does not physically achieve anything.  I am also intelligent enough to know that this Coca Cola here is laced with sugar that may not be the healthiest thing for me but I enjoy drinking it.  I am also intelligent enough to know that freedom means the inalienable right to have Cocoa Cola or other sodas available for marketplace purchase and that taxation of the product and government demonizing of products is an attempt to deny freedom.”

“Why should a person who is intelligent enough to understand this be subjected to a behavioral mandate when the ability is there to make decisions based upon knowledge learned?  Who here has the right to dictate to me that I must have insurance to birth a child or that my health or the health of others is doomed by drinking soda pop?  And yet, a mandate of Health Insurance for all citizens will open the door for laws to be passed beyond the Health Insurance mandate to regulate how much soda pop one can ingest without punitive measures being imposed a citizen.  How long will it be before more legislation of social welfare is forced upon more citizens?  Is this not just another way of stating that the individual has no rights to their body?   Is this not stating that the right of ingestion of substance into the body belongs to the Federal Government and not the individual?  Is this mandate which opens the door to more mandates really, as the Declaration on Independence states, Government securing the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness?

The lawyer turned to the table.  The attorney placed the pineapple on the chopping block and set the plastic grenade beside it.  The wrong arm of the law grabbed the machete and brought the blade down on the pineapple slicing the top off of the fruit.  “Can I offer anyone a piece of pineapple?”  The Prosecutor held up the sliced off top of the pineapple.  “Look” the Attorney stated “there is a sticker on here that states that this pineapple is a product of the USA.  It must have come from Hawaii.  But I ask the Court: How can this be a product of the USA since pineapples are not indigenous to the USA?”

The machete slid over to the plastic grenade.  “Look” the attorney said “here is another pineapple.  This pineapple has a label on it stating Product of China.  I ask the court:  If I state that I like pineapple’s…which pineapple am I talking about?  The pineapple that was grown on US soil but that is not indigenous to the US or the plastic grenade?  In fact, how shall the two representatives of children we see here will learn that a slang term for a grenade is a pineapple?  Should this be part of their curriculum in schooling?” 

The machete slung through the air with a wave of the hand.  “Or, for example, how will these children learn that a machete is a weapon that is legal to use to slice a pineapple but is illegal to use to maim another person, unless, perhaps, in the case of self defense or in the theoretical case of medical emergency?  Is this specifically taught in school?  The Court members are asked: How did you learn that slicing someone with a machete is not a legal practice?  Can any of you tell this attorney the date and time of learning such behavior?”

“We can tell the attorney that the time is running out on this obtuse argument” the Chief Justice stated.  “This argument is going nowhere.”

“The second part of the individual rights attack underway is the attack on the ability to think independently” Attorney Cahn blurted.  “It is impossible for any of us to recollect exactly when we learn each individual aspect of our lives but learn the aspects we did.  We also learn different meanings for different words.  A pineapple can be a fruit or it can be a grenade.  In America there is an attack upon how citizens are to think as well as how the ability to make independent decisions about what to ingest in our bodies.  Words and mediums of deliverance of words are being bandied about as being banned or by being subject to a Fairness Doctrine.  If the individual mandate to punitively force Health Insurance onto the populace is adjudicated as being legal by the Supreme Court because this falls under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause as well as a social welfare concept then how long will it be before words are banned and thoughts are banned due to the thoughts and words not being considered good or proper words and thoughts under the Commerce Clause or a social welfare concept?  How long will it be before a new code language is developed…like…say…pineapple versus pineapple…that deals with the revolutionary overthrow of the punitive social welfare concept?”

“If the basis of the Commerce Clause is that the Commerce Clause regulates the intake of substances into the body, and inherently the intake of thoughts into the mind, and mandates the purchase of the products for the social benefit of all then what power is not ascribed to the Commerce Clause?  As the first Baron Acton wrote Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Great men are almost always bad men.  Ultimately the Commerce Clause is wielded by the men or women in power and even though a new political party may be voted into office the corruptive ability of the Commerce Clause remains. 

The basis of the determination of the Constitutionality of both the Commerce Clause and other legislations passed should be via the Blind Baby Test.  The Blind Baby Test requires that the legislation be evaluated in terms of whether the legislation passed would adversely affect one Baby that we know nothing about versus another Baby that we know nothing about.  The race, sex, region of residence, and economic background of both children are not known.  In the Blind Baby Test the question of Constitutionality is based upon whether a legislative act either punitively restricts the rights of one baby or if the legislation benefits one baby over another baby. 

A mandate requiring a citizen to buy any product clearly restricts the rights of either Blind Baby.  Comply, or face punitive measures.”

The Cahn went on.  “The point is that the Court must recognize where the decision in this case is leading with respect to the rights of the individual as well as to the as yet unmentioned property rights of the individual.”  The dolls were raised.  “These children here start out with a blank slate and then they learn behavior.  Does the court truly believe that a government system based upon punitive measures just for existence under an absolute power government authority will ultimately lead to anything but revolution?  There is no difference between the imposition of the individual mandate and the mono-party Arab world Government actions that have led to recent Arab world turmoil.”

Website Builder