Obamacare dead on arrival in 2013, part 1

The Constitution defines trason. Obama is demonstrably guilty of this.
Print Friendly

Based upon the United States Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and now, established case law, Obamacare is dead on arrival in 2013. But before I prove Obamacare is invalid I challenge every law professor, attorney, and/or judge, or the whole group of you, to an open public debate on stage, radio, and/or TV, to prove me wrong. Any takers?

Does the Constitution mean what it says?

The solution is simple. It relies on irrefutable facts and law presented below. It behooves every American to demand the Supreme Court an answer to these four Constitutional challenges:

Obamacare breaks the Origination Clause

The United States Constitution Article 1, Section 7 is unambiguous “positive law”, – the “Origination Clause”:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives: but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Both sides of the Obamacare controversy requested Judge Roger Vinson (U.S. District Court for Northern Florida) to address the legislative history of the Act. The Court found that the bill originated in the U.S. Senate. See Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. F. Supp.2d-, 2011 WL285683 (N.D. Fla.2011) which documents that the House of Representatives were not amending a Senate Bill, but instead found the “Act” to have originated in the Senate. That distinctly violates Article 1, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution rendering the “Act” “null and void.”

Case law will now sink Obamacare

The Constitution. It must sink Obamacare

The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States

Amazingly not a single (or should I say cowardly) State Attorney General (26-in-all) argued these irrefutable fact, after being presented with them, which makes one wonder. Only one Petition challenged “H.R.3590” “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” usurpation of the Constitution. That case was Purpura v. Sibelius, in the New Jersey District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court (Case No. 11-7275). We brought that challenge only to see it go unanswered. Therefore the issue is still unsettled and ripe for review. And thanks to Hobby Lobby we may finely have an opportunity to argue the facts and law.

Supreme Court Precedent

The Supreme Court held that H.R. 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” did indeed have taxes throughout. So said Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority decision. Therefore, we have new case law. And this precedent will defeat Obamacare.

Inarguably all three levels of the Federal Court system violated their fiduciary duty by failing to address the Constitutional argument that came before each level of the Federal System. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled the “Act” contained “Taxes.” That makes the “Act” constitutionally invalid based upon the “Origination Clause.” The “Act” irrefutably originated in the U.S. Senate as the Hon. Judge Roger Vinson found and stated above.

The first individual or corporation to be ordered to pay a Tax has a legal Constitutional right to challenge that Tax in Federal Court as unconstitutional. On that point, every American regardless of political persuasion should give a resounding cheer to the Hobby Lobby corporation. Its owners are standing firm and saying, No! We will not comply concerning for “Abortifacient drugs and birth control”. Americans in every State should stand behind them and bring forth a legal challenge.

Fraudulent Conveyance of a Legislative Act

Proved and never denied throughout all legal proceedings, the Congressional leadership acted with fraudulent intent. The Democrat leadership took an unrelated House Bill (H.R. 3590, named the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009”). They extracted the entire contents of said legislation, then replaced the contents with the Senate’s original bill (‘America’s Healthy Future Act,” S.1796 ), a precursor to the “Act.” They did this to give the appearance of Constitutional legality in passage of the “Act”.

Then the leadership with fraudulent intent substituted the original name “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” (H.R. 3590) with “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to surreptitiously give Obamacare a “House Designation Number”. Constitutional law states, only the House of Representatives has Constitutional authority to originate a revenue raising Bills. The House accepted the Senate bill for expediency independent of any written House bill.

Obamacare vulnerable on the “tax” issue

What also makes this issue ripe for review: the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled that the penalties were in fact taxes. Will other corporate leaders stand up and be counted along with “Hobby Lobby?” Regardless, whether the entire Congress ruled “H.R. 3590” should be the law of the land, the United States Constitution says otherwise. They would have to revoke Article 1, Section 7, and Paragraph 1. This has not happened.

Other articles to come

In Part II, I will conclusively demonstrate the Obamacare “Act” “H.R.3590” violates the 1st Amendment,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

and how the Obamacare “Act” violates the 14th Amendment, “equal protection and equal treatment.”

Part III will unquestionably demonstrate that the 45,000 citizens that are employed in the Medical Device Industry will have legal bases to sue if lay off due to ‘H.R.3590”. In violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 5 and contains different rules for different states in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 6. Every individual who loses his/her has a Constitutional right to sue the United States Department of Health and all those that passed this unconstitutional “Act” I pray after reading the incontrovertible argument presented herein will begin lining up attorneys in every State in the Union. In short, the “Bill” is without a doubt unconstitutional!

What no one has addressed this particular “Act” is also ripe for a civil RICO action based upon its implementation.

But you’ll have to wait till you’re served to see what’s in the legal action.

No pun intended Mrs. Pelosi.

The Eagle