The Republican., 1960-12-29

pendent as possible for as long as
possible. The threat TO this in
dependence is not from old age.
The threat to this independence
is an all powerful state. The think
inc Of the Commission, the plan
Of the Commisson, the work of
the Commission will not promote
hut will destroy Individual indie
pendCncc The Commission ignores
this threat to our free society and
seeks not independence but a
super state to which all are be-
holden. / do not question the sin
CeritY of the humane motives of
the Commission | question the
wisdom if not the Constitutional
ty of legislation evidently under
favorable consideration.
The Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States
Constitution-the heart and soul
of our Bill of Rights - deny
power to the Federal and State
Governments respectively of TAX
ing from the citizen his God
given right to life, to liberty and
to pursuit of happiness. Our Con-
Stitution also guarantees the equal
protection of the laws to each
citizen. This guarantee extends to
rich and poor alike, to black and
white, to those who are well and
those who are sick, to young and
to Old Unlike the Soviet Constitu-
ton. which claims State dis
DcnsatiOn OF rights, our own phil
0sOphy maintains these rights to be
inalienable. The function of our
State is to protect and guard these
rights
In maintaining this equal protec-
ton for each citizen, the State
cannot deny or subvert by taxa
tion or other arbitrary device the
rights of one person in favor of
another or use the general vel
fare clause of the Constitution as
a sledgc hammer to destroy rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
This may be old-fashioncd think
ing. | believe it is right thinking
! believe it is right unless we are
prepared to scrap the Constitution,
discard individual freedom, and
proclaim the State as the master
The Commission, therefore, in con
science, cannot ignore the plain
meaning of the Constitution and
sponsor special legislation to
favor a citizen because the citizen
is fortunate in reaching some arbi-
trary chronological age that
defines as that of
senior citizen" This is also a de-
vice for creation of class that
can be treated specially for votes.
Second. The announced basic
concept that colder persons have
the right to free choice is not
merely concept to which the
planners in Washington claim dis
covcry. Free choice is an inViOla-
bic Constitutional right Every
court in the land is bound to pro-
tcct this freedom within the
framework of established due pro-
cess of law. If any person, regard
less of age, is not being afforded
the equal protection of the laws.
| salute the Commission for its
efforts in behalf of such person.
The planncr who drafted these
concepts manifcsts his ignorance
or his contempt for the Constitu-
tion. 1t is possibly the latter for
there appears deliberate at
tempt to use the words of the
as screen for de-
priving the individual of his
freedom by pretending that some
other person is being deprived OF
freedom | should like to ask the
who wrote these con-
ccpts if he can show me one state
or federal court in the United
States that closes its doors to
senior citizens.
Third The announced concept
that older persons arc entitled to
preservation of individual idcnti-
ty" is a confusing expression. I'm
;css the State controls the lives
of older persons. as well as
Younger persons, individual identi-
ty is automatic. Our government
does not grant individual identity.
This comes from God. The only
or external threat to this
identity is an all-poWerful State.
Only a bureaucratic thief would
dare pretend that his bureaucracy