Joined: 10 Dec 2005
|Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 1:24 pm Post subject: Nikki Haley is correct to reject enforcement of Obamacare!
|Our founding fathers were very careful to stipulate in our Constitution, and in crystal clear language, that our Constitution, and only those laws which shall be made in “pursuance thereof”, shall be the supreme law of the land. All those who assert Obamacare is “the law of the land“, need to explain why the following stated reasons are insufficient to establish that Obamacare has not been made in pursuance of our Constitution. And they need to explain why Obamacare is in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. Keep in mind our very own Supreme Court once stated: The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Let us start with Justice Roberts’ opinion and identify what specific taxing power granted to Congress has been pointed to which is to be levied in the enforcement of Obamacare’s “shared responsibility payment“. On page 41 of Roberts’ opinion he eliminates Congress’ direct taxing power as being resorted to and levied in the collection of the “Shared Responsibility payment”, and inadvertently goes on to also exclude a tax which may be laid upon incomes without apportionment. He writes: “A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”
According to Roberts, the shared responsibility payment is “triggered“ by a realization of “a certain amount of income”. But in fact, the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a realization of “a certain amount of income”. The subject matter being taxed under the individual mandate is a failure to have federally approved health insurance which triggers the tax, while a calculation of one’s “income” is then used to discriminate among citizens in the payment of the “shared responsibility payment”, and under such circumstances would not be “shared“ uniformly or equally among the citizens of the united States as required by our Constitution.
Moving on to Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes are those levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter. Does Justice Roberts consider it a “privilege” and not an inalienable right for individuals to determine their own medical and health care needs?
Finally, we are left with imposts and duties which Congress is authorized to lay and collect, but are immediately eliminated as being the taxing power resorted to for the “shared responsibility payment” because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.
Perhaps the above observations explain why Roberts never identified the specific taxing power [imposts, duties, excises, a direct tax, or a tax upon incomes without apportionment] which may be levied upon individuals for not having federally approved health insurance. Roberts merely indicated the shared responsibility payment is to be collected along with taxes on incomes, not that it is an “income tax”.
The next reason why Obamacare appears to have no constitutional basis is because the people have never debated granting power to Congress to enter the various united States and regulate the people’s medical needs and health care decisions and choices. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted with the specific intention “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of” the new governments “powers”. And this fact is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Note that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are among those “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and in crystal clear language they reserve all powers not delegated to Congress to the people of the united States or the respective united States!
The irrefutable fact is, no power can be pointed to under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, under which Congress may lay and collect taxes to fund Obamacare, nor enter the various united States and mandate what the people‘s medical and health care decisions and choices shall be. And, the only lawful manner by which to delegate such power to Congress is under Article V of our Constitution. But Article V requires consent of the governed via the approval of the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, and this has not happened! And to this end, the fact remains that 26 States have officially rejected Obamacare by filing suite against it, and this fact was conveniently ignored or perhaps overlooked by Justice Roberts when submitting his written opinion in the case.
And so, the question remains ___ When have the people of the united States knowingly and willingly delegated to Congress the extraordinary power to meddle in their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices? Is this not exactly what Obamacare does? Is it not settled law that an act of government which impinges upon a fundamental right, is “presumptively unconstitutional”? Our Supreme Court eloquently once stated:
“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”___ City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
Is it not a fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices?
In view of the above stated facts it becomes only too obvious that any government force, federal or state, used to implement Obamacare would be an act of tyranny and a violation of the command that our federal Constitution and only those laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of our land. Hence, those who pursue the enforcement and implementation of Obamacare would obviously be guilty of indictable offenses and ought to be prosecuted!
In closing I fully support Gov. Nikki Haley’s position and I do so for the following reasons:
"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin." ___ SEE: HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS
If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?