The Constitution and an Insurance Policy

On Saturday, March 20th, I posted an article about my Facebook exchange with Michael Boldin, Founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. Even though Michael eventually agreed with me about secession, his organization is probably not ready to forsake the Constitution quite yet and aggressively promote secession.

My career has been in the insurance business. I started in 1973 as an insurance agent. In 1994, I switched over into the claims adjusting side of the business. So I know how to read and interpret an insurance policy. Let’s compare insurance policies in general to the US Constitution.

The US Constitution has articles, sections and terms that expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of “The United States of America,” the name given to the management company created by the thirteen states in 1787. The Constitution and its Amendments also expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of “The United States” and the several states to each other. It lists the things that “The United States” is prohibited from doing. The document is not legal, and cannot bind any two persons to each other or to a government.

An insurance policy has terms and conditions that expressly outline the duties and responsibilities of the insurance company and the policyholder to each other. The policy is a legal contract, since both parties signed the agreement and each received a copy of the agreement. This is a “contract of adhesion,” meaning that the insurance company created all the terms and conditions, and the policyholder could not alter the contract, but could only adhere to it by signed agreement. The insurance policy also contains exclusions, the list of risks and losses that are not covered under that policy.

So the US Constitution has many similarities with an insurance policy. Both have terms, conditions and exclusions that define the relationship and duties between parties. Both have been widely interpreted, for good or evil. Both have engendered innumerable lawsuits over the years, the Plaintiffs seeking to have a court render an opinion on how to interpret the documents. And both the US government and the insurance companies have abused their obligations as well as abusing the citizen or policyholder.

But here is the BIG, HUGE, IMMENSE DIFFERENCE.

An insurance policy can be cancelled. An insurance policy can be non-renewed. An insurance policy can be denied or rejected by either party.

But once the policy has been cancelled, the insurance company and the policyholder do not continue to argue about the terms and conditions of the dead policy. They do not continue to attempt to enforce the terms and conditions of the dead insurance policy upon each other. The insurance company stops sending the policyholder premium notices, the policyholder stops making premium payments, and the policyholder stops filing claims.

Think about how abjectly silly it would be for the policyholder and the insurance company to continue badgering each other about a policy that was terminated decades ago. Think about how absurd it would be for the policyholder to hand down this story from generation to generation. Think about how ridiculous it would be for that old policyholder’s children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren to continue desiring to be legally bound to that old policy, and to argue the terms and conditions of that policy that terminated a century or more ago.

Yet that is EXACTLY what the pro-Constitution folks like the Tenth Amendment Center do every day. They spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money arguing the articles, terms and conditions of a US Constitution that died back in the 1860s. They seek to enforce the terms of a dead document on a rogue band of well-dressed thieves and murderers in Washington DC.

You might be able to make the argument that the people who ratified the US Constitution back in the 1790s actually had a legal agreement between themselves and their new Federal Government. It would be a weak argument, and I submit that it would be fallacious. But a man who was 21 years old in 1790 would have been 91 years old in 1860. No matter how iron-clad his Constitution might have been for him, he could not transfer that compact to his progeny and bind them to it at his death. For to do so would have not secured the blessings of liberty to his posterity, but would have bound them with the chains of serfdom, since they had no chance to either accept or reject the pact.

Here is another strange twist to this story: What would you do if the insurance company continued to send you premium notices long after the policy cancelled? What if they escalated that to armed bill collectors who could arrest you, confiscate your assets, jail you or kill you when you refused to pay the premium on a policy cancelled years or decades ago? And the courts upheld the theft?

That is what “The United States” does every day. You are expected to pay taxes to this rogue government in every way imaginable, and you risk death if you resist.

This picture says it all.

So, when I receive comments from sincere people about their commitment to the US Constitution, I feel sadness and compassion for them, since it is clear that they have not discovered that the US Constitution has no authority over them, and offers no solutions or the future of freedom. I understand that this realization is an intellectual process, since I had to make the same journey from rabid Constitutionalist to fierce Secessionist. It’s painful, since one must admit that deeply-held foundational beliefs are categorically wrong.

But cheer up!! When the dark clouds of tyranny and ignorance part, the warm sunshine of liberty will warm all who are enlightened by its rays.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first…and wisest?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

3 Responses to The Constitution and an Insurance Policy

  1. […] and an Insurance Policy Posted on March 22, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Russell D. Longcore on DumpDC.com. Yet that is EXACTLY what the pro-Constitution folks like the Tenth Amendment Center do every day. […]

  2. Dale Caruso says:

    So tell me what you REALLY think?
    This piece I sense comes straight from your heart … and is TOTALLY spot on!!!
    Great Piece.
    Just EXCELLENT!

  3. greatdivorce says:

    Thanks for the link to Spooner over on my blog. Read it twice so far, and damn, that’s heady stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: