The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution. The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

Obamacare: they have it all wrong

Here we go again, another useless e-mail requesting we “Click here” to “Blast Fax” Congress requesting they defund Obamacare. Does anyone think Congress cares about or even reads any FAX-blast or petition related to defunding Obamacare? Especially since they’re exempt from participating in the “Act”? (Or at least from paying out-of-pocket for it. – Ed.) The Center for Individual Freedom goes on to cite Cruz “…The only way we can win this debate is if the American people rise up and demand it.”

If our legislators truly want to end Obamacare, they should stop the meaningless grandstanding and just do it – Obama’s threats to shut down the government not-with-standing. The government has been shut down before and we were none the worse for it.

End of Obamacare – once and for all

It’s time to stand up and take it to Obama and the Democrats by initiating a substantive legal action. Such a lawsuit will not only end Obamacare but have numerous Democrats up for re-election in 2014 scrambling for cover.

There are no less than three specific legal arguments that will end Obamacare that no Court in the land can refute. It has the ability to have the numerous Democrats up for re-election looking for a retirement homes, as I will demonstrate below.

Proof Obamacare was an unconstitutional legislative action

The Constitution. Under it, Obamacare should never have been.
The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States

The “Law of the Case” was established by the Honorable Judge Roger Vinson, in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Judge Vinson, at the behest of both parties in the dispute on the constitutionality of the Act, established that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was created by the U.S. Senate, and said “Act” contained taxes. Thereafter the Supreme Court of this United States also held the “Act” contained “taxes.” Therefore, it is inarguable that the Senate, House of Representatives, and Mr. Obama violated of Article 1 Section 7, of the United States Constitution.

By law, Article 1, Section 7 in the U.S. Constitution specifically that requires that all bills for raising revenue had to originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare was in reality twice ruled unconstitutional. So the question that must be answered, does the Constitution of the United States mean what it says? Does the Oath to uphold the Constitution have any meaning?

Marbury v. Madison stated:

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that the law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Interesting enough, the two most liberal judges on the Supreme Court, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer held: and I quote:

In short, a law beyond the power of Congress, for any reason, is no law at all. Nigro v. United States.

A crime of fraud took place.

This will tell Americans whether the Republicans are serious about ending Obamacare or whether they’d rather aid and abet in protecting the Congressional leadership that acted with indisputable fraudulent intent, to make it appear that the House of Representative’s created the “Act”?

When in truth and fact, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Harry Reid and other members of the House of Representatives (to be named in the legal action took an unrelated House Bill – HR 3590, Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009”, extracted the entire contents, and thereafter replaced the contents with the Senate’s version of The Senate’s “America’s Healthy Future Act” (S.1796) a precursor to the “Act.” This gave the appearance of legality by passing an “Act” that originated in the House of Representatives. However, the “Act” (HR 3590) that was passed in the House was completely gutted and replaced with S.1796. This was an act of intentional fraud perpetrated on the American people and was done in order to acquire a House designation number, (in this case HR 3590). Then the leadership had to rename the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” H.R. 3590 to the “Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.” In essence, the only original component of the House bill was the designation number, which was needed to give the appearance that the bill originated in the House. It was a slight of hand that Harry Houdini would have been proud to call his own, had he been a fraudulent entertainer.

The House knowingly accepted the Senate “bill” for expediency independent of any written House bill. This criminal behavior was done behind closed doors following the election of Scott Brown to the Senate replacing Senator Kennedy in order to stop a Republican filibuster.

No provision in the Constitution grants exceptions to Article 1, Section 7, nor does any provision exist that allows “revenue bills” to originate in the Senate. Nor can it be argued that the House of Representatives was amending a House “bill” since it was found to have originated in the Senate and it established the law of the case as stated above.

Violation of the “Equal Protection and Equal Treatment” provisions:

This Count goes to the basis of the suit itself, a total disregard for the United States Constitution, which the Federal Government was unable to dispute – forfeiting yet again. The Representatives and Senators involved failed to obey their oaths to protect and preserve the Constitution and keep their fiduciary responsibility to represent us and the states properly.

Neither political party seems to understand Article 1, Section 8, ¶1 of the Constitution, which specifically states:

The Congress shall have the Power (sic) To (sic) lay and collect Taxes (sic), Duties (sic), Imposts (sic) and Excises (sic), to pay the Debts (sic) and provide for the common Defense (sic) and general Welfare (sic) of the United States; but all Duties (sic), Imposts (sic) and Excises (sic) shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Has “equal protection” under Amendment 14 now become “null and void” by Executive and Legislative fiat? The individual is not the standard anymore; the group is the standard. Your protection as an individual has now been replaced with social justice and “specific welfare” (which by the way was ruled unconstitutional in 1936 by the SCOTUS (see, Butler v the United States) and the government will now decide which groups are to be exempt from certain provisions while others are given preferential treatment.

The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison prior to the ratification of our Constitution. The purpose of these articles was to explain the Constitution to the people who were considering ratification. Federalist Paper #57, written by Madison, states:

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing (sic) but liberty.

Non-uniform taxes

Are ‘We the People” less equal to those we elect to represent us, since now we read, that the people’s Representatives are exempt from participating in the “Obamacare”? Is this not an outright violation of the 14th Amendment? Does this not make a mockery of “Equal Treatment”? Or have we, as Madison wrote, become “prepared to tolerate any thing (sic) but liberty?”

Do any of our representatives in Congress understand the Constitution, and the “Uniformity Clause” in the Constitution? The part that applies to taxes is what makes this important, since Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in the Obama-care case specifically stated that this is a “tax.” If it is a “tax” then it falls under the guidelines for taxes in the Constitution, which specifically states that all taxes must be “uniform.”

I believe the Framers of the Constitution were unambiguous when they wrote that taxes had to be uniform and equal throughout the United States. Later, the 14th Amendment extended this to equal protection of the laws.

Therefore, I ask, what is it that our representatives fail to understand concerning preferential treatment and discrimination (to which a civil rights argument exists)? Has not Mr. Obama and Congress abused their power by issuing Obama-Care waivers for Members of Congress? I’d argue this is totally are illegal and I’d strongly suggest they read Federalist Paper #57 to help their understanding.

That being said, where are the lawsuits? Even now, Mr. Obama has taken it upon himself to violate “legislative intent” of the legislation by extending provision of the “Act” until after the 2014 mid-term election to maintain a political advantage for his political cabal.

It’s time the GOP establishment stops posturing, and starts proving to the American people that they are serious about repealing Obamacare. It’s time to stop talking and start acting. The above legal arguments are irrefutable; let’s see the Democrat Party apparatchik, and/or the Courts argue against them.

Based upon the facts above, stop all the useless whining and put pressure on every member of Congress with a “Blast FAX” demanding they refute the argument presented – and if the above is not enough. I can proffer 15 addional irrefutable arguments why Obamacare is totally unconstitutional. And if they don’t read the “Blast FAX” perhaps they will read a lawsuit.

I have repeatedly put forth to any and all the legal scholars (Universities, and/or judiciary) to prove me wrong on why Obamacare must be ruled unconstitutional, at least try and prove me wrong.

The sooner Americans realize there’s no such thing as a two party system, only an entrenched establishment, the sooner we can start rebuilding this country. If the Republican Party wanted to end Obamacare they would have. The tools our Founders gave us to repeal this atrocity exist; they just have to be acknowledged and used.

The Eagle.

Reprinted from Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub

[subscribe2]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

candidate, constitutional law, healthcare reform, judiciary, liberty, politicians, president, Tea Party

Comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top