When Galileo Galilei first supported the Copernican idea that the Earth moves around the sun, he had to fight similar taking-for-granted.  People jeered at a Copernican model the way we jeer at Ptolemy’s earth-centered universe. Galileo had many difficulties to overcome before convincing a populace that the earth did not belong in the center of the universe.  Several stood out to me in reading his Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems.

First, he had to overcome an entirely different concept of motion.  The developed philosophy and science of motion prior to Galileo and Newton was very different, pulled from the pages of Aristotle and his interpreters.

Second, he had to overcome a body of scientific evidence, or at least the perception of scientific evidence, that supported the Aristotelian system and contradicted his own.  Several experiments conducted supposedly showed that the earth did not move.  Galileo had to convince people that his experimentation contradicted these other experiments–and thus that nobody probably bothered to conduct the other experiments.  One such experiment involves dropping an object from the mast of a ship while it is docked (and stationary) versus while the ship is in motion.  The Aristotelian experiment stated that an object dropped would fall straight down and fall a ways from the mast, whereas Galileo shows that the object would actually drop at a velocity consistent with the ship if the ship traveled at the same velocity.  He further shows that if people were in, for example, a railway car that had no windows and no way to perceive what was outside the car, no experiment conducted on the inside of the car could prove whether the car was traveling at a consistent speed or stationary on the tracks.  Galileo’s contemporaries would view this concept of motion as completely contrary.

Third, Galileo had to opposed a vast, interconnected, all-encompassing philosophy.  The Aristotelian system had sprouted centuries upon centuries prior to Galileo, and had developed into a rigorous and robust philosophical system.  Galileo wanted to tear apart its entire foundation in observing that it did not accord with the evidence.

Fourth, Galileo had to sever the way philosophy and science were tied to religion.  Galileo warned against declaring a heliocentric model heretical, because such a view may become orthodox in a later age.  Galileo contended that the Christian church religion would work just as well, no matter where humanity should find the earth.

This is connected to a fifth problem: authority.  Not just religious authority, but intellectual authority.  Galileo got in trouble by going against papal declaration, but he also got in trouble for going toe-to-toe against Aquinas and Aristotle.  The outlook of the intelligentsia concerning the proper conduct of learning and study was vastly different than our own today.  Prior to the scientific revolution, only occasionally did piercing intellects such as Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas appear onto the scene.  They spent their lives perceiving great truths and declaring them to the world.  The subsequent generations would then study the works of (or interpretations of) the great intellects.

And it took great merit, indeed, to establish oneself as an intellect worthy of saying something new.  Aquinas–later named the doctor of the church–never achieved such veneration during his lifetime.  In an academic milleiu concerned about human perfection and spiritual development, and considering the sparsity of great intellects, a person attempting to enter the stage as a great intellect would much more likely be vaunted only by his or her arrogance or ignorance, rather than the merit of any ideas he or she had.  When a thinker achieved a status of a great intellect in the academy, however, a person would commit academic suicide by disagreeing with such a thinker.  Galileo challenged this culture of academia by emphasizing, in a special, strong way, the importance of theory’s corroboration with the evidence.

That Galileo was wrong about a lot didn’t help.  His errors are understandable, and I cannot critique his brilliant perceptiveness, because he did not have a developed scientific physics to work from–a development that Newton helped bring.  Newton’s description of the laws of physics, heating and cooling, and gravity are essential to making sense of a Copernican system.

In a way, it’s probably a good thing that Galileo didn’t devise an entirely new system, free of immediately-perceived error, otherwise the intelligentsia may have proceeded to venerate him as a great intellect.  Instead, Galileo proposed an imperfect demonstration of the truth of the Copernican model, and encouraged thinkers to continually look to see if a touted theory accorded with the available evidence.  We should forever be in his gratitude.

Here’s a link to the book, iff’n you want to give it a read.

My response only deals with certain Constitutional Law considerations.  He posted on August 12th, and I’m not sure which version of the Bill he expressed concern.  But the general question on peoples’ mind has to do with whether the federal government has the power to create a health care plan.  In short, yes, it does.

The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

Valid concerns and considerations, although I would prefer citations and explanations of how the legal rigamorole would produce these results.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system.

I’d like to know how, specifically.  It doesn’t seem like a foregone conclusion from any proposed Bill, so I’d like to know what provisions lead to inevitable destruction of private health care.  Does it bar health care from taking certain actions that the government can do, for example?  Or does it make the health care companies pay all sorts of fees, so that they can’t fairly compete?  I’d be more convinced if I saw some of that.

All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

All decisions?  Like, whether I want to go to a doctor?  Whether I have to take the pills perscrived?  What doctor I have to see?  What I can tell my doctor?  Any health care provision will always have controls, whether they are dictated by insurance companies, the government, or the barbed constraints of cold, hard cash.  What sort of controls does Connelly refer to?

Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.

Not to mince words, but I think giving the executive the ability to shoot nukes was a pretty big power transfer.  Okay, not fair.  But neither is this rhetorical scare-tactic.

The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This is a terrible argument.  I “defy anyone” to peek into the Constitution and find the right to privacy.  Or the power of the Congress to create an air force.  Or a bar on state-passed speech restriction.  Or the power to create the FAA or FCC.  Or the power of the President to remove an executive officer from a post to which he was appointed by the President (or the power of the officer to resign, for that matter!).  Or the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional.  Constitutional law is not merely a matter of reading the direct words of the constitution.  Thankfully—otherwise, we’d have far, far fewer rights than have been extended us by court interpretation.

In all likelihood, Congress probably has the authority to make expansive health care legislation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare for the United States, in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause.   Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (power to regulate interestate commerce) is likely another locus for the authority to create health care legislation, especially that governing insurance companies.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4^th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

An interesting issue.  Depends on how it’s specifically provided for.  But since the federal government already has access to a lot of that information already, I’m pretty sure it’s not “unreasonable.”  Most of the protections on health information exist by statute, not by constitutional right.

As a side note, I wonder how anything can clearly be a direct violation of the 4th Amendment unless it is clearly “unreasonable.”   Also recall that there is leeway in determining how warrants issue.  Warrants are not limited just to search and arrest warrants used by police officers.

You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3^rd and 4^th Amendments may provide.

It already largely has been “legistlated into oblivion,” but that’s because the courts have a hard time finding the right to privacy in the constitution and how it applies.  Interestingly, he cites Griswold v. Connecticut as support for the 3rd Amendment providing a right to privacy.  Griswold is a case that provided states could not prohibit the use of contraceptives, and was actually (if I recall correctly), the first Supreme Court case that specifically ruled that the constitution protected a right to privacy.  The third amendment, though, is only referenced in passing by a Justice as supporting the notion that privacy was a concern for the founders.

I’m not sure about his takings clause concern, but by the time I got to this point in the post, I’m skeptical about what the Bill actually provides and how truthfully he accounts of it.

Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

Perhaps.  But if Congress has the enumerated power to legislate in this area, as it probably does, then the states gave Congress the power to make such legislation by ratifying the Constitution.  If the states are thus concerned, they need to amend the constitution to get that power back.

While it always pays to be vigilant of our leaders to ensure they don’t take away our rights or legislate poorly, as far as the Constitution is concerned, I don’t see them trampling it–at least as far as his post explains.  It sounds like Connelly is doing a lot more fear mongering, for whatever reason.

I’m noticing a trend.  First, dock interfaces required a proprietary chip.  Now, they’ve moved up to the headphones.  Next stop:  only ears implanted with Apple’s proprietary chip may interface with the iPod.

O thou that with surpassing Glory crownd,
Look’st from thy sole Dominion like the God
Of this new World; at whose sight all the Starrs
Hide thir diminisht heads; to thee I call, [ 35 ]
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy Spheare;
Till Pride and worse Ambition threw me down [ 40 ]
Warring in Heav’n against Heav’ns matchless King:
Ah wherefore! he deservd no such return
From me, whom he created what I was
In that bright eminence, and with his good
Upbraided none; nor was his service hard. [ 45 ]
What could be less then to afford him praise,
The easiest recompence, and pay him thanks,
How due! yet all his good prov’d ill in me,
And wrought but malice; lifted up so high
I sdeind subjection, and thought one step higher [ 50 ]
Would set me highest, and in a moment quit
The debt immense of endless gratitude,
So burthensome, still paying, still to ow;
Forgetful what from him I still receivd,
And understood not that a grateful mind [ 55 ]
By owing owes not, but still pays, at once
Indebted and dischargd; what burden then?
O had his powerful Destiny ordaind
Me some inferiour Angel, I had stood
Then happie; no unbounded hope had rais’d [ 60 ]
Ambition. Yet why not? som other Power
As great might have aspir’d, and me though mean
Drawn to his part; but other Powers as great
Fell not, but stand unshak’n, from within
Or from without, to all temptations arm’d. [ 65 ]
Hadst thou the same free Will and Power to stand?
Thou hadst: whom hast thou then or what to accuse,
But Heav’ns free Love dealt equally to all?
Be then his Love accurst, since love or hate,
To me alike, it deals eternal woe. [ 70 ]
Nay curs’d be thou; since against his thy will
Chose freely what it now so justly rues.
Me miserable! which way shall I flie
Infinite wrauth, and infinite despaire?
Which way I flie is Hell; my self am Hell; [ 75 ]
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threatning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heav’n.
O then at last relent: is there no place
Left for Repentance, none for Pardon left? [ 80 ]
None left but by submission; and that word
Disdain forbids me, and my dread of shame
Among the Spirits beneath, whom I seduc’d
With other promises and other vaunts
Then to submit, boasting I could subdue [ 85 ]
Th’ Omnipotent. Ay me, they little know
How dearly I abide that boast so vaine,
Under what torments inwardly I groane:
While they adore me on the Throne of Hell,
With Diadem and Sceptre high advanc’d [ 90 ]
The lower still I fall, onely Supream
In miserie; such joy Ambition findes.
But say I could repent and could obtaine
By Act of Grace my former state; how soon
Would higth recall high thoughts, how soon unsay [ 95 ]
What feign’d submission swore: ease would recant
Vows made in pain, as violent and void.
For never can true reconcilement grow
Where wounds of deadly hate have peirc’d so deep:
Which would but lead me to a worse relapse [ 100 ]
And heavier fall: so should I purchase deare
Short intermission bought with double smart.
This knows my punisher; therefore as farr
From granting hee, as I from begging peace:
All hope excluded thus, behold in stead [ 105 ]
Of us out-cast, exil’d, his new delight,
Mankind created, and for him this World.
So farewel Hope, and with Hope farewel Fear,
Farewel Remorse: all Good to me is lost;
Evil be thou my Good; by thee at least [ 110 ]
Divided Empire with Heav’ns King I hold
By thee, and more then half perhaps will reigne;
As Man ere long, and this new World shall know.

“It is the humble man who does the big things. It is the humble man who does the bold things. It is the humble man who has the sensational sights vouchsafed to him, and this for three obvious reasons: first, that he strains his eyes more than other men to see them; second, that he is more overwhelmed and uplifted with them when they come; third, that he records them more exactly and sincerely and with less adulteration from his more commonplace and more conceited everyday self.”

Dang.