Saturday, December 15, 2012

Judge 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."

As 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:
We're all aware of the indefensible decision by Chief Justice John Roberts where he hallucinated some mumbo-jumbo that the individual mandate is a tax.
Religious organizations have been fighting to stop implementation of certain provisions that violate their religious beliefs:
But, what about employers and doctors who will be so negatively impacted by that monstrosity?
Let's take employers first.
Small 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."
Look at this U.S. Supreme Court decision:
Argued March 13, 14, 1935
Decided May 6, 1935
"The 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."
Congress 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.
In the 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 health care coverage has nothing to do with interstate commerce, companies operating safely or anything other than the social welfare of workers.
While 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:
"Another 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."
We must 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.
We know 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 memo:
"...for 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 meetings:
"Memorandum 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 sections:
"(b) 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.
"Although 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."
Additionally, the so-called reporting requirements by employers will cost them a lot of money which down the road means layoffs 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.
I'm 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.
The 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 eventually, communism.
The 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.
The 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:
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.”
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Linder).
Lower circuit:
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 [1925] 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.
Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, with more than 35 years of 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.
Stand up for the Constitution
Judge 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."
Clyburn's constituents obviously approve of their representative being a lawless, oath breaking stinking socialist, but he's not alone:
John 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: Prof. Rob Natelson: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause
Just 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.
As for large employers, one has to understand who destroyed the finest health care delivery system on this earth. Blame the U.S. Congress beginning in 1973:
"We 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.
"While 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." And: Blame 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.
Americans 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.
One other important argument:
"The 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."
Violation of the Thirteenth Amendment
Obamacare 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."
Thirteenth 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."
Neither 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."
It doesn't 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.
Only 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.
We must all make our voices heard in our respective states: Four and Counting: Another State to Consider Obamacare Nullification
Important links:
© 2012 - - All Rights Reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.