Mr. Natelson,

I found the article most educational. From a philosophical point of view I would like to offer a couple of comments.

First, I appreciate the technique of re-defining the language being used. It has come to the point that nearly every word has been in the political lexicon has been re-defined by the progressives. It's about time we took the language back so that words do not mean their negation. In particular is the word regulation. To the founders it meant "to make regular". To the progressives it means "to tax or control" In short regulation has come to mean it's negation. Each successive regulation of industry makes trade a less regular occurrence.

Secondly is the idea that health-care could be a right or more broadly that Congress can create rights. The only rights one has are the "right to life" and rights to liberty and property which are a subset of the right to life. Also a right that violates the rights of others is a contradiction in terms. The only right one has to health-care is right to trade one's stored wealth (or credit on that wealth) for the care provided by the medical profession. To claim that my right to health-care supersedes your right to property (derived from your right to life) destroys any claim I could ever make on the right to my life and as a derivative my supposed right to health-care. Such is the nature of an inverted premise. It destroys those values it seeks to gain.
.

Spoken like a true altruist

The virtues that could serve to keep this republic were never lost, they were never held to begin with. The founders, while having developed the most perfect founding document to date, did not develop a moral code that defined individual rights and capitalism (the implication of those rights) as good. Even Thomas Payne who is perhaps best know for his book "The Age of Reason" in which he rips appart the bible by applying logic and reason to it still considered the altruistic moral code of jesus as the most perfect and sublime. INDIVIDUAL rights and capitalism can not be held as good by a code that preaches sacrifice and selflessness. So long as we take the stance that rights are given by God and that Capitalism is good because it lifts the most people out of poverty, we don't have a leg to stand on. For those serious about learning about a morality of rational self-interest I will recommend you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

If what you are advocating is nullification, I'm with you. If however what you are suggesting is a constitutional convention I say not yet. It would in no way behoove us to replace the political ideas of our founding fathers with those of present politicians. As you mentioned in your article the problem is not political, it is systematic. Questions of systems are philosophic in nature. Before we can have a successful constitutional convention we need a philosophical and moral revolution. A government based on INDIVIDUAL rights and the primacy of capitalism can not be achieved or maintain by a people who hold an altruistic moral code.