The Dooley Principle

Joe Benning is a burly biker from the Northeast Kingdom who thinks he has a right to ride down the highways with the wind whistling through his hair. Joe is also a lawyer with a very strong devotion to the Vermont Constitution and its outspoken 18th Century affirmation of the liberties of the people "which ought not be violated on any pretence whatever."

So when the State of Vermont decreed that all cyclists must wear helmets when using the highways, Joe Benning decided to take that law to court. On January 31 the Vermont Supreme Court passed judgment on his case, and Joe lost.

The Court might have rested its case on one overpowering fact: the government owns the roads. As the owner of the property in question, the government may prescribe rules for the use of that property by the public. It may limit the speed at which the public may travel, require vehicle operators to have operating licenses, limit the weight of vehicles, and require motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Unfortunately, the Vermont Supreme Court did not rule against Joe Benning on these perfectly obvious grounds, perhaps because the Court does not want to accord greater importance to the concept of property rights. Instead, Justice John Dooley, a former Legal Aid lawyer, argued that the helmet law was necessary to hold down health care costs.

Taking note of the ongoing debate about health care reform, Dooley wrote these two key sentences: "Whether in taxes or insurance rates, our costs are linked to the actions of others and are driven up when others fail to take preventive steps that would minimize health care consumption. We see no constitutional barrier to legislation that requires preventive measures to minimize health care costs that are inevitably imposed on society."

So there you have it: your life belongs to the State.

Consider the implications of this new constitutional principle.

Smoking is hazardous to your health. Smokers run up health care bills, some of which are not covered by insurance. Therefore smoking can be prohibited - not only in enclosed public places, but in your own home or out in your own woodlot.

Alcohol is hazardous to your health. Drinkers run up health care bills, some of which are not covered by insurance. Therefore alcohol use can be prohibited. (This is unrealistic, of course, because the State pockets $9 million a year from its alcohol peddling monopoly.)

Firearms are hazardous to your health. Gun users sometimes cause higher health care bills, some of which are not covered by insurance. Therefore firearms use can be prohibited. (This ought to be unrealistic, because the Constitution explicitly provides that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State," but one should not expect a Dooley court to take this clause at face value.)

Obesity is hazardous to your health. Therefore ... well, you can see where this argument goes.

The Dooley principle says in plain English that the State has the Constitutional power to make its citizens do anything the State decides will minimize health care spending, provided only that the Supreme Court can be made to buy the argument.

Influential political leaders, including the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the junior U.S. Senator, and our Congressman, are supporting legislation that variously forces people to join health care collectives, forces businesses to pay employee insurance costs, forces young working people to pay insurance costs for old people, forces the sober to subsidize the drunks, and in the case of the Clinton-Jeffords plan, imposes criminal penalties on people who seek to purchase desperately needed medical treatment outside the government-controlled system.

The proponents of all of these invasions of liberty and mandated spending schemes, so unavoidable whenever anything like health care is collectivized, must have been relieved by the enunciation of the Dooley Principle. They would not want a Supreme Court's commitment to constitutional principles such as liberty to get in the way of their plans for controlling our lives.

####

March 1994