the nightmare known as Obamacare continues to slap everyone across the
face with its blatant unconstitutional sections, even the Marxists (aka
Democrats) are starting to balk:
Democratic senators revolt against Harry Reid on Obamacare tax (12.12.12)
- Do take the time to read that article.
all aware of the indefensible decision by Chief Justice John Roberts where
he hallucinated some mumbo-jumbo that the
individual mandate is a tax.
organizations have been fighting to stop implementation of certain provisions
that violate their religious beliefs:
ObamaCare setback: Little-noticed court ruling lets church challenges
Court Shocks Life Into Obamacare Challenge
what about employers and doctors who will be so negatively impacted by
take employers first.
Employers Weigh Impact of Providing Health Insurance - "By 2014,
businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will be expected to offer
as yet undefined affordable coverage, based on an employee's income. For
employers that fail to offer such coverage, the law typically calls for
a penalty of $2,000 a worker, excluding the first 30 employees."
at this U.S. Supreme Court decision:
RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)
RETIREMENT BOARD et al.
ALTON R. CO. et al.
March 13, 14, 1935.
Decided May 6, 1935.
Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368:
catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer
in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees,
seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for
clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a
hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending
to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said
that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to
the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that
they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of
the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such?
We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the
orbit of congressional power."
has only the powers enumerated in Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution,
which is why the Federal Department of Education, the SBA, the EPA, HHS
and many other cabinets and agencies ARE unconstitutional. While I'm not
a lawyer, I know how to read. I've also been blessed the past two decades
with having good, dear friends who are constitutional attorneys with decades
of experience that have taken their precious time to help me learn so
much about the Constitution, unconstitutional laws and how to read court
decisions. When reading court decisions, it's very important to read the
footnotes and then go read what the justices (or federal or state judges)
used in making their decision. And, yeah, it takes a lot of time to do
this kind of research. Some days I spend doing nothing but reading decisions
and chasing down the footnotes.
case above, the court basically said employers are not required to provide
for the "satisfaction and comfort" of employees. Forcing a private
sector employer to provide medical health coverage (which no one even
knows yet what that is going to be) absolutely could be considered to
"relieve the employee of mental strain and worry". Forcing employers
in the private sector to provide heath care coverage has nothing to do
with interstate commerce, companies operating safely or anything other
than the social welfare of workers.
the justices wrote heavily in that decision about interstate commerce,
what this really boils down to is whether or not Congress has the constitutional
authority to force employers to provide Obamacare to employees. I frequently
quote Joseph Story, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Commentaries
on the Constitution, 1833:
not unimportant consideration is that the powers of the general government
will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects,
such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce.
In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce
regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and other relations,
between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of
the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary
course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the
people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state."
also look to the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states respectively, or to the people.
from reading Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution that health care
is not an enumerated power granted to Congress. We should also go back
and look at the Zellman
a law to be valid, it must be constitutional and second, let's remember
what killed Comrade Hillary Clinton's attempt back in 1993 when she was
co-president. The Zellman memo was obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act in an effort to find out what went on in those secret health care
for Walter Zellman from Sallyanne Payton, clearly marked: Preliminary
Draft for Official Use Only. Do Not Quote or Release For Any Purpose,
page 4, Health Care Task Reform under Hillary Clinton. Please note these
may the federal government use other actors in the governmental system
and the private sector as its agents and give them orders as though they
were parts of a prefectorial system? The short answer is "no."
State governments are independent, although subordinated, sovereignties,
not subdivisions of the federal government.
the federal government may regulate many of their functions directly [as
well, for example, it subjects state water districts to the Clean Water
Act], it may not require them to exercise their own governmental powers
in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be encouraged, bribed
or threatened into entering into joint federal state programs of various
sorts, from unemployment insurance to Medicaid; but they may not be commanded
directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the service of federal
policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment that seems
to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ [Dept. of Justice] memorandum
for a fuller elaboration."
the so-called reporting requirements by employers will cost them a lot
of money which down the road means lay offs or no new hiring. The U.S.
Congress has zero authority to force employers in the private sector to
dance to their tune and it's long past time to fight them.
sure there are many more cases, but the bottom line is this: Employers
across this country need to join together and file a lawsuit. If you own
a business and know three or four other business owners (or more), join
together and retain a top notch law firm. If you have six, eight or ten
businesses, the pain of attorney's fees is lessened by quite a bit. You
must fight back or there will be no end to destroying all the sacrifices
you have made building your business. I absolutely believe you can prevail
if the argument is presented from a solid constitutional basis with previous
court decisions that favor the argument.
U.S. Supreme Court rarely overturns another Supreme Court decision, but
it can happen. However, since 1935 nothing has changed except the drive
to destroy our constitutional republic, slide us into socialism and then
abomination called Obamacare contains endless panels and commissions that
dictate to doctors how they will take care of their own patients. The
'death' panels are real, as well as forcing doctors to spend their own
resources to compile data bases about their patients making sure your
personal life will be jeopardized by leaks or sophisticated hackers. No
where in Art. 1, Sec. 8 does it give the maniacs in the U.S. Congress
the authority to force your doctor to turn over all your medical records
for some electronic database.
same plan of attack for employers also applies to doctors throughout this
country whether you're a single practitioner or belong to a medical group,
the U.S. Supreme Court has made several decisions that favor you:
v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925): "Obviously,
direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of
the federal government."
v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926): “It is
important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice
in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder
v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly
restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with
its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in
that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”
309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Linder).
States v. Anthony et al., 15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.Cal. 1936) (June 23
12069-12072. United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division
am referring to these facts in order to indicate that we must bear in
mind the purpose of the act — that the act is a borderline statute
which must be interpreted in such a manner as to bring it within the constitutional
power. And if we depart from it and interpret it either as attempting
to regulate the disposition and sale of narcotics or attempting the regulation
of medicine, we extend the act to the realm which the Supreme Court has
repeatedly said the federal government cannot enter, under the penalty
Linder Case (Linder v. United States  268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct.
446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229) is very important. We all seem
to agree, whether we read it alike or not, that it determines this case,
so far as the law is concerned. I wish to refer to it for the present
only for the purpose of pointing out that the moment we assume that this
act regulates the sale within the state of narcotics and that it aims
to regulate the practice of medicine, we must hold it unconstitutional.
attorney, Larry Becraft, with more than 35 years experience dealing primarily
with federal laws has this to say: "There is a constitutional problem
regarding Obamacare that nobody has mentioned: it violates principles
of equal protection. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains
an equal protection component, and thus equal protection principles apply
to the feds. See Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954);
and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224 (1995).
" The rest of Larry's writing can
be found here. I highly recommend reading it.
up for the Constitution
Andrew Napolitano: "I was interviewing a Congressman from South Carolina,
Jim Clyburn, who's the number three ranking Democrat in the house, and
I asked him quite simply and plainly where in the Constitution is the
federal government authorized to manage health care? He told me, "Judge,
most of what we do down here, (referring to Washington) is not authorized
by the Constitution."
constituents obviously approve of their representative being a lawless,
oath breaking stinking socialist, but he's not alone:
Judiciary Chairman Unable to Explain Where Congress Gets Authority to
It's in the 'Good and Welfare Clause'
has decades old ties to both the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists
Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To
Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'
Conyers doesn't know his arse from his elbow regarding the General Welfare
clause of the U.S. Constitution. For one of the best pieces of writing
on the ignorance and real meaning of the General Welfare clause, I recommend:
Rob Natelson: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause
as I urge employers to fight, I pray doctors across this country will
band together and file lawsuits in as many states as possible. Ten doctors
as plaintiffs greatly reduces the cost of a lawsuit. If they don't, the
delivery of quality medical care in this country will continue to hurt
patients and doctors as well.
large employers, one has to understand who destroyed the finest health
care delivery system on this earth. Blame the U.S. Congress beginning
the Cost of Health Care
should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand,
but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires
all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage,
and the tax code allows businesses — but not individuals —
to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical
coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed
without needed catastrophic coverage.
many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears
how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal
law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to
deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but
Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead,
we are told more government — in the form of “universal coverage”
— is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds
of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs."
Congress for HMO's by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President
of the Citizens' Council on Health Care & former Congressman and physician,
Dr. Ron Paul.
need to become educated with the facts and stop playing into the hands
of those who wish to destroy this republic by constantly chanting: It's
the Republicans or Democrats or the illegitimate usurper camped out in
the White House. It's both parties who have been part of destroying health
care by forcing unconstitutional "laws" down the throats of
doctors and other medical care providers.
other important argument:
Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare
Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm, has
opened up a new front in conservatives' never-ending struggle to wipe
Obamacare off the books. Their secret weapon? The Origination Clause of
Article I, section 7, which states that "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." The key idea is that
the Supreme Court recently upheld the individual mandate as a tax. But
if the mandate is a tax, the PLF argues, then it is a bill for raising
revenue. That means that the Affordable Care Act must have begun in the
House of Representatives. And it did not."
of the Thirteenth Amendment
just raised your health care premium by $63: "Among the regulations
being rushed out the door by the Department of Health and Human Services
32 months after Obamacare passed is a requirement that every plan in America
be subject to a $63 fee. That $63 is part of a fund to subsidize people
with pre-existing conditions, who are more expensive to cover but whose
costs must be transferred to healthier individuals in the new system."
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction."
the U.S. Congress or one of their unconstitutional cabinets has any authority
to steal the fruits of my labor and increase my private health care insurance
premium by any amount of dollars to subsidize people with pre-existing
conditions or any condition for that matter. Involuntary servitude means:
"Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are involuntariness,
which is compulsion to act against one's will, and servitude, which is
some form of labor for another."
just apply to slavery. A person working and paying their own high insurance
premiums is now going to be stolen from to pay for someone else's health
conditions. My husband and I pay for our own health care premiums, yet
now the thieves in the unconstitutional DHHS are going to steal from me
to pay for someone else's medical problems? If I get a bill for that,
believe me, I'll be talking to an attorney because I am not going to take
this like a slave. Whether it's $63 bux or $630, it's still wrong.
15 States Opt to Run Obamacare Exchanges. A year down the road we'll
all see another enormous mess created by the lunatics in Washington, DC
in setting up those "exchanges" for the rest of the country.
all make our voices heard in our respective states: Four
and Counting: Another State to Consider Obamacare Nullification
Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game
Agents will not be involved in tax audits, pursuing Americans without
goes bonkers as ObamaCare actually starts destroying jobs
plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality
Democratic Party merge with Communist Party?
How Things Jog Your Memory
- NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
This Site Served