PART 2 of 2
July 10, 2012
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.
"According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase - not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.
"Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law."
Followed up by this commentary from Rocky Montana: "To give strength to the argument below: It is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to create or rewrite law; it is charged with one, and only one, enormous responsibility which is to interpret and decide whether laws and cases coming before it are constitutional or not, period. The Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Mandate was wisely "interpreted" and struck down as unconstitutional by five out of nine Supreme Court judges (a majority), including Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Obamacare was not written as a Tax Law (under the broadly interpreted taxing-powers - Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution); it was written as a Mandate Law (under the Commerce Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). The Obamacare Law has zero language in it that speaks to a tax upon the people. Don't be hoodwinked America; neither Chief Justice John Roberts (nor any other judge) can magically wave their hand and rewrite Obamacare and ordain "it survives as a tax" like some grand wizard. Obamacare does not survive as a tax because it was not written as a tax! (Again, the Supremes DO NOT have the constitutional authority to create or rewrite law.)
"Under the recent Supreme Court interpretation and decision, if Obamacare is ever to become law, as stated below, the law must be rewritten as a tax and be reintroduced in the House of Representatives for an up or down vote, and if passed must go to the Senate for an up or down vote, and if passed must be signed into law by the President. Anything less than this course of action is unconstitutional and, therefore, unlawful and illegal."
We shall see.
My dear friend and constitutional attorney for over 35 years, Larry Becraft penned this:
"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 alleged need for Obamacare to take over the whole medical system in this country was based on the failure of a segment of American society to have medical insurance. Apparently, those who don't have medical insurance adversely impact the medical industry and the delivery of medical services. However, it must be noted that those with medical insurance did not cause this problem. For purposes of argument only, let's presume that the insured American public constitutes 80% of the populace, while the uninsured comprise 20% of the populace.
"When a legislative body is attempting to address a social problem, whether great or small, it cannot impose duties on those who are not a part of or the cause of the problem without violating equal protection principles. For example, drunk drivers do constitute a hazard on the roads. But to address the problem caused by drunk drivers, a legislative body could not adopt of law affecting 100% of the driving public, inclusive of people who are not causing the problem, because to do so would violate equal protection.
"Principles of equal protection are concerned with legislative classifications. If a legislature detects a problem and adopts of law that affects only a segment of those causing the problem, the legislature has created an “underinclusive” class. If it adopts of law that affects a far broader class than those causing the problem, it has created an “overinclusive” class. See Alvarez v. Chavez, 118 N.M. 732, 886 P.2d 461 (1994)(license restriction for bondsmen was overinclusive); Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm., 965 F.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C.Cir. 1992)(distinction in Cable Act between “external, quasi-private” and “wholly private” cable systems was “overinclusive * * * in that this burden does not serve the Act's purpose”); Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 69 (Fla. 1990)(“Equal protection analysis requires that classifications be neither too narrow nor too broad to achieve the desired end.
"Such underinclusive or overinclusive classifications fail to meet even the minimal standards of the rational basis test”); French v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, 203 Conn. 624, 526 A.2d 861 (1987)(ban on residential picketing except for unions was overinclusive); Treants Enterprises, Inc. v. Onslow County, 83 N.C. App. 345, 350 S.E.2d 365 (1986); District of Columbia v. E.M., 467 A.2d 457, 466 (D.C.App.1983) (welfare statute of limitations was void because classes were both “underinclusive and overinclusive”); Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976)(using the rational basis test, the Court determined that a commercial fisherman limitation was unconstitutional because the act’s classifications were both overbroad and underinclusive); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 214, 95 S.Ct. 2268 (1975)(“the legislative classification is strikingly underinclusive”); Laakonen v. Eighth Judicial District Court for County of Clark, 91 Nev. 506, 538 P.2d 574 (1975)(guest statute violated equal protection); Sturrup v. Mahan, 261 Ind. 463, 305 N.E.2d 877, 881 (1974)(“This is precisely where the rules sweep too broadly, they create an over-inclusive class”); Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806, 815 fn. 8 (2nd Cir. 1973)(“grossly overinclusive or underinclusive classifications should not be readily tolerated”); Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal.3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 227 (1973)(California guest statute was overinclusive, had many exceptions and it “‘imposes a burden upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class of those tainted with the mischief at which the law aims’”); and Patton v. State of North Carolina, 381 F.2d 636, 643 (4th Cir. 1967).
"Why does Obamacare violate equal protection? Those who have insurance will have their medical services and treatments curtailed and controlled, even though they are not a part of the problem, which is caused by the uninsured. Encompassing 100% of the public to address a problem created by 20% of the public creates an overinclusive class, which violates equal protection. But then again, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid already solved the problem caused by the uninsured by taxing them in an amount that approximates insurance premiums.
"Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, it is insanely so."
We know that obscene 2700 page bill will restrict access to treatment. Liberty Counsel did a point by point breakdown: Obama Administration's Health Care Plan - HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives:
122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - Your health care will be rationed!
• Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - There will be a government committee deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
• Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!
• Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.
• Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!
• Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Now, if you go to this document - H.R. 3200 introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, you can take the sections cited above to verify what they say is true. Please note that document is 1,017 pages. You can bet 99% of the outlaws in the U.S. Congress didn't read it. Oh, and who wrote the bill? Michael Moore Celebrates Obamacare Law Written by Insurance Companies
Next we head on over to this official document at healthcare.gov: "Read the Law. Here we provide two ways for you to read the text of the Affordable Care Act." You'll notice the section numbers are different from H.R.3200 and it's 2490 pages. (Some three hundred pages were only given to Congress at the last minute.). Why? One of our veterans who has a real way with the pen, wrote this [in part] to Rep. Cliff Sterns:
"The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare was a split the baby decision. The court was right on the Commerce Clause and Medicaid mandate but the taxing authority was an abomination. Like most everything Congress does, Obamacare and many other programs are outside what Article 1, Section 8 authorizes. Most troubling is the fact the media ignores the criminal acts perpetrated by Senate Majority Leader Reid who in this case, violated the Constitutions Origination clause. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 clearly states, “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.”
"Legislative history shows that on September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced H.R. 3590, titled the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 modifying the first-time homebuyers’ credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and John Boehner was the minority leader when this bill passed on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote. This bill went to the Senate where Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted H.R. 3590, deleted all the contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with what became the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" of November 19, 2009.
"House members including the Speaker, Senators, and Chief Justice Roberts know the only thing about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originating in the House of Representatives is the bill number, H.R. 3590. Justice Roberts disregarded the bill's legislative history ignoring the Origination Clause. He refused to explain how the Senate's ruse circumvented the Framers' clear intent in the Origination Clause. His decision legalized Senate Majority Leader Reid's criminal behavior. This decision allows future but equally corrupt majority leaders to replicate this fraud if this law stands.
"The reason Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 dictates taxes originate in the House. It is the legislative body most accountable to the people. Written thusly it forces house members to weigh the necessity of taxes against the price representatives must pay at their next election, which is never more than two years away. Congress knew what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax. This decision represents imposition of a tax by judicial fiat, which inverts the constitutional scheme, placing the power to tax in the hands of a branch of government least accountable to the people." Roy G. Callahan, US Navy (Ret.)
That Affordable Care Act I referenced above is H.R. 3590. You can see by the overview that mess will cost trillions. Most of the unconstitutional provisions do not kick in until 2014, but the impostor president's lackeys have already been stealing the fruits of your labor to set that monstrous new bureaucracy into motion. On page 10 you'll see the National Health Care Workforce. There are more work force training and grants than sand on a beach. Cha-ching. Page 14 gives you the Revenue Provisions and Sec. 9015: Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
And people wonder why health care costs have skyrocketed? The parasites at DHS are busy writing 13,000 new regulations for that "law".
A nightmare beyond description:
That law that isn't a law (signed by a usurper) contains dozens of commissions and panels on treatment, withholding treatment, medicines and more. The only problem is the U.S. Congress has NO authority under Art. 1, Sec. 8 to legislate any of it:
Linder 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."
Lambert 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.”
United States v. Anthony et al., 15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.Cal. 1936) (June 23 1936) - Nos. 12069-12072. United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division
"I 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 of unconstitutionality.
"The 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.
"In the Linder Case, Mr. Justice McReynolds, speaking for the court, made this observation: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."
For all the doctors and other health care practitioners out there: join together and find competent legal counsel. If I were a doctor, I would refuse to have anything to do with Obamacare because as the courts above have said: legislating medical practice is beyond the power of the federal government. "Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease." If I were a doctor, I would tell Kathleen Sebelius and her unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services: See you in court. That goes for Catholic hospitals and doctors.
The rebellion began June 28, 2012. I hope some enterprising person out there prints tee shirts (on the back so people can read it behind you at the post office, grocery store or bank) which says:
We will not comply
The rebellion has begun
Under that a picture of John Roberts (shoulders up) and the U.S. Constitution with a lit match underneath.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
I'll buy some -- as long as they are made in the USA. There are plenty of companies that sell blank tee shirts made in THIS country, not communist China. Someone could make some money and keep Americans employed. Sounds like a grand idea to me!
This battle has just begun. While the states are doing the right thing with refusing to comply, their citizens are still at risk from the dragoons at the IRS. Many more court battles to come with an important one by the Liberty Legal Foundation: "Liberty Legal Foundation intends to use its existing Obamacare Class Action lawsuit to bring Obamacare to the Supreme Court again. Because we have already begun our lawsuit we are well-positioned to reach the Supreme Court quickly. With a little providence we will reach the Court just when Justice Roberts has begun to regret last week's mistake."
Is An Unconstitutional Direct Tax
2- Model legislation for states to nullify
3- According To An MD - Part 1 Of Obama Care Was Already Passed Last February
4- Supreme Errors
5- ObamaCare: "Suddenly, Everyone Wants Out."
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
E-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org