People don't appreciate what they have... —until they no longer have it...!: Freedom...
How many people today (under the age of 50) even know what that means...? what TRUE freedom is...? —before our nation devolved into a corrupt, abusive, controlling bureaucratic "social-democro-ism". The extent of the average person's concept of "freedom" is their ability to choose McDonald's or Burger King for dinner.
See also another page herein (which contains very important information concerning freedom—and our God-given, inalienable rights secured to us by the Constitution and the Common Law):
One thing that separates a free country from a communist country is the right to property (which is also defined by the Framers as "the pursuit of happiness")—and property that others can forcefully tax you on (Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto) or take away from you at their whim or if you don't perform to their demands (Plank #3 and #4), is not really yours.... (abolition of private property, Plank #1).... People in the U.S. do not own their property, land or houses or otherwise... taxed when you buy it, told how you can use it, taxed every year you own it, taxed when you sell it. That is not ownership. It is an illusion of ownership. The State owns it.
HOWEVER, the PRIMARY differing element from a free country and a communist country is that in the communist country the State believes that it OWNS the very lives, bodies, and souls of the people. People are slaves; they may be given some degree of "freedom" like a dog on a chain may have 12 feet of slack... but if a person steps over the line or does anything that offends the "powers that be," his leash is yanked and he is taught a lesson with the business end of whatever is in the tyrant's hand. [—though all persons are declared to be "equal"—those who have assumed power obviously consider themselves to be "a little more than equal", "more equaller", "above equal".]
In a free society, man own his own body, and in a free Christian society (which we used to be), man realizes that GOD owns his body and that man is a steward of that body with full rights. In a free society when crimes are committed, they are viewed as crimes against citizens and in a free Christian society man realizes that all sin is ultimately against God, in whose Image man was made, while at the same time crimes committed are also against the individual—and punishment of the criminal and restitution to the victim is required. In the communist society, all crime is against the State under whose image all people are bound; the only one wronged is the State (for slaves cannot be wronged, only their master; the self-aggrandizing, totalitarian State views itself as the only victim).
Draconian, KGB-, Mafia-like assaults against the freedom of owning our own bodies have waxed more and more invasive, abusive, and totalitarian over the past several decades.
- Peaceful farmers offering raw milk (which, by the way, humans drank for 5,970 years of man's history—and the peoples of many nations of the world still do drink raw milk, it is healthier) are attacked by SWAT teams with automatic weapons.
- Many alternative health products and procedures have been outlawed; some clinics / manufacturers a few decades ago crossed the border into Mexico and operated for many years, until the U.S. Stormtroopers crossed the border and arrested them and shut down the clinics on foreign soil.
- Vile, deadly vaccines are forced on children and adults alike.
- Corrupt politicians are even trying to outlaw vitamins, minerals, and other supplements (as has been done in Australia) and even outlaw natural seeds and forbidding people to grow their own health fruit, vegetables, or poultry and livestock. Full-blown communism is about to erupt.
The corrupt government wants people to be sick (as well as in a constant state of unrest, turmoil, terrorism, chaos, fear, fragmented, non-homogeneous society)—because they are then easier to control.
We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but one of the sickliest. Out of 17 wealthy nations, the U.S. comes in last in general health, disease, and life span. See also his link (at the below site) on obesity. The U.S. is the third fattest nation in the world. Why? Because the U.S. encourages laziness with welfare, allows food companies to lace their foods with GMOS (and the government subsidizes the growing of the most unhealthy crops), nutrasweet, High Fructose Corn Syrup, preservatives, artificial colors and flavors, pestacides, etc.—while at the same time restricting or outlawing natural and healthy foods. Why? Because the U.S. is owned and run by Big Business, Big Pharma, and Big Agra-business (how...? they are paid bribes or they all own stock in these companies). See also Dr. Mercola's report at the below link, concerning the government subsidizing these unhealthy, dangerous foods.
See this report by Dr. Mercola:
In it Dr. Mercola also points out that the U.S. spends about double per person on health care than do the U.K., France, or Sweden. My added comments to the possible reason for this are:
[This point needs to be studied... do Americans spend nearly twice because they are more sickly or because the medical prices are absurdly inflated so that no one without insurance can afford most healthcare... also, it must be factored in all the illegals and welfarites that are on the public dole abuse health care and go to the hospital for every single sniffle or sore throat, and thus waste taxpayer money for $150 office visits to tell them to buy a pack of throat lozenges. Doctors used to make house calls. Doctor's visits (or more properly, "visits to the doctor"—doctors rarely visit any more) used to be affordable by the average person. Now you go to a doctor and it is like you have a taxi outside waiting for you... as you know the price starts at the basic office visit price and only goes up exponentially from there. Now doctors scandalously overcharge—and charge about 5 patients for the same billable hour for 10 min. of their time, after making them wait an hour. And many times, the doctor then tells you he cannot help, and "refers you" to a "specialist," so you end up paying 2 or 3 different doctors and their prices are all inflated, since insurance covers it, they crank it as high as they can get away with, whereas in the true free market, they would have to lower their prices to be competitive and charge realistically what people could afford.
In my small town, the "hospital" serves (it seems to me) as a multi-million dollar shuttle facility. For many things, they merely refer you to a doctor in the next town and thus you pay the hospital fee and then you also pay the fee of the doctor to whom they "refer" you (and without the hospital's "referral" or if you don't have a "regular doctor" of your own to give you a referral" these other doctors most often won't even see you, because they don't see new-patients without "referrals" and they claim they are so busy that they cannot take on "new patients"). This is a fraud and a scam.
If someone needs an operation nowadays, he has to sell his house to be able to pay for it, if he does not have insurance. Operations used to be affordable (costly, but not something in which you had to sell everything you own to pay for)... and with 700,000 doctors in the U.S., you would think competition would drive the price within the realm of reason, but insurance and so-called "specialization" prevents it from doing that. The purpose is to control the people, keep them sickly, think only doctors can heal and provide good health, so people will then sell their souls and their freedom so they can "afford" health care.
The average person sees a doctor once a week, because the majority of the population is comprised of people who are on welfare (including all the illegals and "legal" immigrants), those who have a government job, or those who work for companies that provide health care. Thus, such people, have full, free health care (paid for by the government or the majority of it paid for by their employer), so they go to a doctor as freely as you or I would pick up the phone to ask a friend a question, they don't worry about the $150-200 office visit fee (or the price beyond it*). They don't pay for it, nor for the $15,000-$200,000 operation. Most people who don't have insurance and can't afford health care (like me) are blessed, and will probably live longer... even though we don't even see a doctor once every 10 years. Oh yeah, by the way, my dad was an MD and a psychiatrist and he knew 90% or more of both industries were a racket and he did not participate in their fraud. R.A.B.
* This would be like having to pay $150 per person just to get into a restaurant, then having high price menu brought out in which you pay for everything else. Further, even if you decide there is nothing on the menu for you that day and are you not going to eat there, that $150 cover charge is not refundable. What a scam. Any other field, if the person is unable to fix your problem, there is no charge. You will rarely go to a mechanic, who, after examining your car says, "I don't know what the problem is..." or "I can't fix it..." —but that will be $300 please. Likewise with a carpenter, a painter, a chef. Never will you hear: "Well, we tried to fix your leaky roof... we tried to paint that wall... we tried to cook that steak, but we just couldn't... that will be $100." Only ]
Foundational to the claim that the State owns the people, body and soul, is the unBiblical "marriage license"; through which the State (the one who claims to be the one who authorized the union and therefore holds all power over the other "lesser" parties to the contract) claims ownership of all that the marriage produces (even as a slavemaster on a plantation may have given a slave-wife to an honorable male-slave, since the slavemaster owns both of the slaves, he also owns all children born to them)...
- this is one of the foundational supports of taxation itself (the State claims it owns all property produced by its slaves), and further this is the foundational support of the fact that
- the STATE claims to own the children—this is why they claim the right to then force vaccinate them and brainwash them in the public schools (Plank #10), and can claim the right to take children away from their parents for any reason they deem warranting, temporarily or permanently.
Anyone who thinks that the 13th Amendment (ironically, the number that represents "rebellion") abolished slavery believes a fairy tale concocted by the State propaganda mills. The 13th Amendment did not free the slaves... —it enslaved everyone equally. Some people can be fooled by semantics, and by having a skewed perspective. A similar thing occurred in the "dumbing down" of children in the public schools. It is outside the realm of possibility to artificially raise someone beyond his ability—so to alter perception, everyone is turned into a dunce to make the dunce "feel better about himself"... —and after a few generations, those who were turned into dunces don't even know what it means to think. When everyone is reduced to slavery, it gives the illusion of everyone having freedom; even as when everyone is reduced to being a dunce it gives the illusion of everyone being intelligent.
That's where we are.
Once those elected officials who are guilty of treason have the power they need, the renegade-public-servants-become-dictators become more and more bold and mince their words less and less, letting us know that they consider us their slaves and denigrating not merely the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the Constitution itself, scrapping it as antiquated history with no valid legal force.
This simple fact should cause people to wake up: Criminal politicians are (illegally and unconstitutionally) trying to shove socialist (and inferior) health care down our throats at gun point (raped by taxes to provide for it, as they already rape us to provide free health care and living expenses for all illegals living here, and for all those unproductive, immoral people who choose to live a life of ease on welfare, rather than work). However, these traitorous, elite politicians themselves will not receive the same health care plan as the common citizen—but a superior health care plan; without paying a penny for it themselves: the tax-payers will pay for their elite, state-of-the-art, royal health care.
Once the enemies of the U.S. (the majority of all politicians who are guilty of High Treason) gain more power and numbers, they will begin the liquidation of all "opposition" (as every other communist nation has done): former freemen who refuse to roll over, allow themselves to be enslaved, and die quietly.
All would do well to watch Mel Gibson's Braveheart and The Patriot again (or for the first time)—and recognize the movies not merely as "entertainment," but reality and history, and that history repeats itself, most often for evil, unless people take fate into their own hands and change it for good.
See also Chuck Baldwin's web-site:
and specifically this article:
...which spurred my thoughts to write the above few thoughts.
Robert Alan Balaicius
Post-Script on The Communist Obama Health Care
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139)]
A renegade, traitorous Supreme Court just made an unconstitutional ruling on forced Obama-care (in which they could not even lawfullyrule, since it is a conflict of interests, since they themselves will not be subject to it, they will have state-of-the-art medical care paid for by the taxpayers)...
This is communism:
- a violation of the right to privacy;
- a violation of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property (which includes ones own body);
- a violation of the right to be secure in ones person, houses, and effects;
- a violation of the right to conscience and religion;
- a violation of the right to contract (and not to contract);
Further, since it was "back-doored" and passed as a tax, it also violates:
- the equal protection clause;
- taxation without representation and unconstitutional taxation: Even if there is representation, which there is no—congressmen and senators no longer represent the people, they represent Big Business and special interest groups who "own them" since they are bought and paid for with campaign money to get them elected, and through continual bribes—and even if there were actual representation, it is illegal for any representative to pass an unconstitutional law. People cannot vote and say "yes, we want our neighbors to give us half their money." This is communism.
- due process: You cannot "fine" a person or penalize him in advance of any crime or alleged crime and you cannot "make it a crime" to do something that is not illegal and which has never been illegal for millennia. You cannot penalize, convict, or take a person's property from him, without his first having had a trial and the free exercise of a constitutional right cannot be "converted" into a "crime."
However, their ruling is irrelevant, unconstitutional, and invalid:
“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” (Simons vs. U.S. 390, US 398 (1968)
“All laws [rules & practices] which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 180)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of his Constitutional rights.” (Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946)
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., Section 177)
“All human laws which contradict His Laws [Bible], we are bound by conscience to disobey.” [George Mason (1725-1792); one of the major framers of the U.S. Constitution, member of the Constitutional Convention 1776, Federal Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 1787, author of the Declaration of Rights (after which most States drew their respective State Constitutions).]
“By virtue of his profession, he [a judge] is presumed to know the Constitutional Rights of citizens, as well as written statutes. He is prohibited from making any decision or applying any rule against any party when that ruling is unconstitutional. When there is a question or any conflict between the two, the Constitution prevails.” (Marbury, Supra)
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton vs. Shelby County, U.S. p. 442)
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” (Miller vs. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489)
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. Any offense created by it is no crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal or void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” (Ex-parte Siebold, U.S. p. 376)
“Where there is no authority to establish, there is no necessity to obey.” (Davies’ Irish Reports 69; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1880) Vol II, (Maxims) 160)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no law making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p. 491)
“Where there is no authority for establishing a rule, there is no necessity of obeying it.” (Black’s Law Dictionary (1910) 2d. 1181; Davie’s Irish Reports K.B. 69)
“Whenever the interpretation of liberty is doubtful, the answer should be on the side of liberty.” (Digest of Justinian 50, 17, 20; Coke on Littleton, 116)
“Natural liberty is the power of acting as one thinks fit without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature.” (Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, vol. 1, 125)
“In the presence of the superior power, the inferior power ceases.” (Jenkins’ Eight Centuries of Reports, English Exchequer 214, c. 53; 13 How. (54 U.S.) 142) [That is, all unconstitutional laws or powers wither in the presence of the Constitutional and Common Law.]
“The People have given to their Governors no Power to do an unjust thing, such as to make an unjust War, for they never had such a Power themselves.” (Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 2, 16, 179)
“The derivative power cannot be greater than the original from which it is derived.” (Noy’s Maxims; Wingate’s Maxims of Law, 66; Finch, English Chancery Reports tempore Finch b.1, c.3.) [that is, the servant (government) cannot be greater than its master (the people).]
PS, if you agree with the sentiments in this brief article (copy and send the link to others you know who also share the same sentiments) and if you want to learn more, see my books on these and other important topics:
[Bulala: A True Story of South Africa] http://stm.christogenea.org/ (history repeats itself, it will happen here too)
Note: I recently (Oct. 2013) the below; I see no website or email address of the originators, but assume their intention was to have it distributed far and wide for American freedom, thus I list below:
NOTE: All information contained herein was researched and written by a professional team at The North American Law Center. All legal points are quoted directly from the Supreme Court ruling on the subject, and all legal claims and remedies have been carefully vetted by a team of Constitutional Lawyers and Scholars at The North American Law Center. The North American Law Center is prepared to stand behind everything presented in this document in its original form and context.
SHUT DOWN OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET TO UPHOLD FEDERAL HEALTH CARE EXTORTION SCHEME *ObamaCare declared unconstitutional by US Supreme Court* The Basis for this Brief The current budget battle between the US House of Representatives and the US Senate is over the funding or defunding of ObamaCare, which was in fact declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in
its ruling dated June 28, 2012 has resulted in an impasse and a partial shut down of the Federal Government starting on October 1, 2013. Despite numerous efforts by the House of Representatives to pass a budget funding everything except ObamaCare, the Senate under the command and control of Democrat Senator Harry Reid (Nevada) has rejected every effort to reopen all federal agencies on grounds that they intend to extort money illegally and unconstitutionally from the American people under their Affordable Health Care Act in which the Federal Government is attempting to seize control of the health care industry, namely ALL related revenue. This document is prepared for the American people and the several States because Republicans currently in control of the House of Representatives are almost certain to cave to the extortion underway, led by Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, unless the States and the people directly engage. The people must prepare to take appropriate measures in that event. Before discussing the criminal nature of events surround the forced acceptance of ObamaCare, we must first state that ObamaCare originated in the US Senate. As the Constitution rests all congressional power to lay and collect taxes in the House of Representatives, from which all tax revenue related bills must originate, the Senate bill known as ObamaCare denied that it was a tax, therefore allowing the bill to originate from the Senate. As you will see here, the courts then attempt to re-write ObamaCare, making it a tax in order to make it appear constitutional. However, the bill in its current form is NOT a tax and if it is a tax, it could only exist if originated in the House.
*ObamaCare is in fact unconstitutional in its current form. But it is much worse that unconstitutional, it is the greatest theft of private property, freedom and liberty in the history of the United States.*
*Extortion* The legal term<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com%2Fextortion&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>>
extortion is defined in Common Law as a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.
Extortion<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com%2Fextortion&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>> is further defined as follows;
The essence of extortion by a public officer is the oppressive use of official position to obtain a fee. The officer falsely claims authority to take that to which he or she is not lawfully entitled. This is known as acting under color of office. The victim, although consenting to payment, is not doing so voluntarily, but is yielding to official authority.
[correction, it is not yielding to official authority, for authority has no authority to do something for which it is not authorized, and thus those in authority step out of their authority, out of their office, and out of their judicial immunity and perpetrate an individual, not an official act; it is not yielding to authority but cowering under abuse of POWER wielded by illegitimate authority (authority renders itself illegitimate when it steps beyond its jurisdiction and thus out of its office and immunity). This myth of authority keeps people in subservience to their own servants. R.A.B.]
Extortion is generally punished by a fine or imprisonment, or both. When the offense is committed by a public officer, the penalty may include Forfeiture of office. Under some statutes, the victim of an extortion may bring a civil action and recover pecuniary damages. Not a Victimless Crime In the case of the ObamaCare extortion, the victims are both the individual States, which are threatened with the loss of federal funding if they refuse to accept the unconstitutional expansion of Medicare and Medicaid within their State, private businesses forced to comply with unconstitutional ObamaCare employer mandates or face extreme financial penalty, and the people of the United States, who are forced to opt-in to ObamaCare or face extreme fines and penalties for opting-out. As every State, business owner and citizen is a direct victim of this crime, each in and of themselves, has legal standing to bring an action against the people involved in committing the crime. The Supreme Court Ruling of June 28, 2012 Key parts of the decision rendered on 28 June, 2012 regarding the constitutionality of the ObamaCare racket are vital to the defeat and defunding of the effort to extort revenue from the States, private businesses and American citizens. Specifically, the following parts of the 193 page decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts are as follows. 1) Congress did NOT pass ObamaCare by constitutional legislative process, but rather by a heavyhanded strictly partisan process which completely eliminated half of the US Representatives from the process in the dark of night. Further, it did NOT pass as a tax bill under the Direct Tax authority of congress, which must initiate in the House. Preamble to the Ruling; In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. Â§5000A. For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a [s]hared responsibility payment to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individuals taxes, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as tax penalties. Â§Â§5000A(c), (g)(1). Another key provision of the Act is the Medicaid expansion. The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care. 42 U. S. C. §1396d(a). The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. The Act increases federal funding to cover the States costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1). But if a State does not comply with the Acts new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. §1396c. Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act's other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact. In short, as Democrats passed the Act through congress on pure partisan lines as a fine and/or penalty, it was unconstitutional as written and passed, as any such Act falls beyond the scope and power of congress and falls under the definition of extortion. Part 1 of the Ruling CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a penalty, not a tax. That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. This is of critical importance because today, the House of Representatives, States or the people could petition the court for an injunction blocking the implementation and funding of ObamaCare on constitutional grounds, as declared in Part 1 of the Supreme Court decision. In short, the text of ObamaCare as passed by Democrats in congress is hereby deemed unconstitutional as is. Part 2 of the Ruling CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 1630. This part of the ruling establishes that the Act as passed in original form by congressional Democrats is beyond the scope and authority of congress under both the Commerce Clause (used by Democrats to pass the Act) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, (used by Democrats to defend the Act). Once again, as written and passed, the Act is ruled unconstitutional as-is under the constitutional authority granted in these two clauses. Part 3 of the Ruling CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to lay and collect Taxes. Art. I, §8, cl. 1. The basis for passing the Act under the Commerce Clause failed the constitutional challenge on its original foundations. Therefore, Democrats used an alternate argument in the lower Federal Courts that even though they denied the Act was a form of taxation during the passage of the Act, they now claim that it is a tax because what they had passed was unconstitutional on its face in its original form. The alternate argument declaring the Act a form of taxation under Congress's constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes also fails the constitutional test however, as it violates numerous constitutional protections for the States and the people, to include the General Welfare Clause which requires congress to only pass laws that serve the best interest of the general population without singling out any individual for special treatment, taxation, fines, penalties or directives in which all citizens are not treated equally. The lower Federal Courts had already issued and upheld rulings separating the individual mandate out from the balance of the Act, deeming that particular clause unconstitutional. By the time the case reached the Appellate Review of the US Supreme Court, the court was forced to review and rule on the basis of the lower court rulings. Original Jurisdiction A purposeful judicial error was made when 26 states joined a suit in lower Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Stated in Article III Section II Clause II of the US Constitution is the original jurisdiction clause, which reads as follows; In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The US Supreme Court has two types of jurisdiction, a) appellate review over lower court decisions; b) original jurisdiction; intended to bring cases directly before the US Supreme Court for adjudication in case where a State (in this case 26 states) and the Federal Government are in dispute over the constitutional authority between the Federal Government and the State. Original Jurisdiction is defined as court's power to hear and decide a case before any appellate review. The original jurisdiction of the Court is laid out by statute in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. Section 1251(a) provides that with one type of dispute (disputes between states), the Court's jurisdiction is not only original, it is exclusive. This means that the lower Florida Federal Court in which the 26 States originally filed their joint claim had NO legal jurisdiction over the matter of constitutionality concerning ObamaCare. The case should have never been filed anywhere but in the US Supreme Court, which holds original jurisdiction on all cases involving a dispute between a State and the Federal Government, especially when the case is based on the constitutionality of a Federal act. The Florida Federal Court should have dismissed the case filed by the 26 States on the grounds of*improper jurisdiction* the US Supreme Court holding original jurisdiction on the matter at hand. Instead, the Florida court acted beyond its constitutional jurisdiction by hearing and ruling on a case in which only the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article III. The Appeals Review also acted beyond its constitutional authority in its review and upholding of the lower court's opinion in Florida. As a result, by the time the case reached the US Supreme Court, precious time and taxpayer resources had been wasted in courts with no jurisdiction, and the judicial activism in both lower court rulings, essentially re-writing the unconstitutional Act from the bench in an effort to make it constitutional under Congress's power to lay and collect taxes, the US Supreme Court was now playing an appellate review role as opposed to their constitutional role under original jurisdiction. Part 4 of the Ruling CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33 44. The Affordable Care Act describes the [s]hared responsibility payment as a penalty, not a tax. That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, [d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application. United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33 35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The problem with what the courts are doing here is that they are re-writing the Act from the bench to suit the Democrats who illegally passed an unconstitutional Act. The court has no such constitutional authority, to write or re-write legislation from the bench, making an Act which is unconstitutional on its face constitutional by perverted judicial fiat. Had Democrats tried to pass the Act as a tax it would have had to meet conditions of the General Welfare Clause for starters, and it would NOT have passed even by a strict party line vote. By altering the Act at the court, the American people are misled into believing the Act in its true form is constitutional when in fact all three courts ruled it unconstitutional in its legislative form. The courts then exceed their constitutional authority by issuing rulings they have no constitutional authority to issue, and re-writing the legislation from the bench to keep the effort to extort assets from the States, businesses and the people intact. Part 5 of the Ruling CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45 58. Here the ruling declares that the effort to force Medicaid expansion on the States through coercion and extortion is also unconstitutional, stating in part; The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. As 26 States immediately challenged the constitutionality of the terms of the program, it is a fair assumption that at least 26 states do not voluntarily accept those terms. Part 6 of the Ruling JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, is of the view that the Spending Clause does not preclude the Secretary from withholding Medicaid funds based on a State's refusal to comply with the expanded Medicaid program. But given the majority view, she agrees with THE CHIEF JUSTICE's conclusion in Part IVB that the Medicaid Act's severability clause, 42 U. S. C. Â§1303, determines the appropriate remedy. Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding not the granting of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate. Again, the issue is booted to the States on a voluntary basis, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstutional to penalize the State by withdrawing federal Medicaid funds in retaliation for the State refusing to participate in ObamaCare. So far, the first six parts of the Ruling have established that ObamaCare is indeed unconstitutional as it was written and passed on a party line vote by congressional Democrats. ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts IIIA, IIIB, and IIID. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. The Dissenting Opinions of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito On page 128; JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting; we find the followingÂ?> The case is easy and straightforward, however, in another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs. From page 131; We do not doubt that the buying and selling of health insurance contracts is commerce generally subject to federal regulation. But when Congress provides that (nearly) all citizens must buy an insurance contract, it goes beyond adjust[ing] by rule or method, Johnson, supra, or direct[ing] according to rule, Ash, supra; it directs the creation of commerce. In response, the Government offers two theories as to why the Individual Mandate is nevertheless constitutional. Neither theory suffices to sustain its validity. From page 134; Congress has impressed into service third parties, healthy individuals who could be but are not customers of the relevant industry, to offset the undesirable consequences of the regulation. Congress desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivated by the fact that they are further removed from the market than unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed
>from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce
Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton's words, the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane. The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). From page 152, concerning the Anti-Injunction Act; Whether jurisdiction over the challenges to the minimum-coverage provision is precluded by the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, 26 U. S. C. §7421(a) (2006 ed.). We have left the question to this point because it seemed to us that the dispositive question whether the minimum coverage provision is a tax is more appropriately addressed in the significant constitutional context of whether it is an exercise of Congress taxing power. Having found that it is not, we have no difficulty in deciding that these suits do not have the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax. 6 From page 162; The question whether a law enacted under the spending power is coercive in fact will sometimes be difficult, but where Congress has plainly crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion, New York, supra, at 175, a federal program that coopts the States political processes must be declared unconstitutional. [T]he federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene. Lopez, 514 U. S., at 578 (KENNEDY, J., concurring). From page 188; Such provisions validate the Senate Majority Leader's statement, I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. . . . [And] if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them. That's what this legislation is all about: It's the art of compromise.Pear, In Health Bill for Everyone, Provisions for a Few, N. Y. Times, Jan. 4, 2010, p. A10 (quoting Sen. Reid). From page 190; This Court must not impose risks unintended by Congress or produce legislation Congress may have lacked the support to enact. For those reasons, the unconstitutionality of both the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid Expansion requires the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act's other provisions. Dissenting Summation The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available. The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court's new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision. The Court's disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary. The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court's ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty. The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today's decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it. For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.
NOTE: You can review the entire 193 page ruling here <http://hastings.house.gov/uploadedfiles/supreme_court_decision_6.28.12.pdf<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fhastings.house.gov%2Fuploadedfiles%2Fsupreme_court_decision_6.28.12.pdf&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>> ; http://hastings.house.gov/uploadedfiles/supreme_court_decision_6.28.12.pdf<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fhastings.house.gov%2Fuploadedfiles%2Fsupreme_court_decision_6.28.12.pdf&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>
SUMMARY OF RULING The US Supreme Court finds that the Affordable HealthCare Act is unconstitutional in its current form. According to the US Supreme Court ruling, the Act must be a tax in order to hold legal authority under the constitutional power of the House of Representatives to lay and collect taxes. However, as the Act was not written or passed into law as a tax originating in the US Senate which has no constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes, it is not a tax and therefore, it remains unconstitutional in its current form. To be clear, ObamaCare is unconstitutional as passed by congressional Democrats. To become constitutional, it would have to be a tax and as a tax it would have to initiate in the House or Representatives under the authority to lay and collect taxes. As an unconstitutional piece of legislation, it has no legal force or effect. It is therefore unconstitutional for the House of Representatives to fund an unconstitutional act of the Senate and Executive Branch. A Federal Extortion Scheme The 113th Congress must now decide what to do with ObamaCare, knowing full-well that the Act is unconstitutional as written and passed on a strict party line vote in the dark of night, admittedly, before any member of congress had even read the Act in its entirety. Because the House of Representatives has the power of the checkbook within its sole constitutional authority, the current House effort to derail unconstitutional ObamaCare via defunding it is a viable strategy, in a broad sense. However, to defund it (rather than delay it), the House need only eliminate all funding related to ObamaCare from its final budget entirely. Due to the judicial activism on the subject, ObamaCare cannot be funded as a standalone item. It can only be funded via the general revenue fund of the Federal Government via Congress's authority to lay and collect taxes. This explains why Senate Democrats are stonewalling the House on every effort to separate the ObamaCare funding from the general revenue budget of the Federal Government. As a standalone item, ObamaCare has already been ruled unconstitutional. The Role of the Government Shut Down Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid (NV) is personally responsible for stonewalling the House effort to fund all provisions of the Federal Government, except the unconstitutional ObamaCare Act. The shut down of portions of the Federal Government is intended to threaten the peace and tranquility of every American citizen and business, going so far as to close off access to open air sections of public lands (belonging to the American people) upon which sits the War Memorials of those who have offered their very lives in defense of Freedom and Liberty. As public lands belong to the people of the United States, not the Federal Government, the Obama Administration and Harry Reid have no legal authority to close public access to those areas. But in their need to cause harm to as many citizens as possible, and a public display, creating fear and pressure upon the citizenry and therefore a forced compliance with an Act deemed unconstitutional, the shut down is a hammer used to coerce and complete the intent to extort private property from the citizenry under extreme duress. Federal cuts, areas of Federal spending deemed non-essential by the Obama Administration, are used to target areas most likely to impact citizens in such a manner as to force them to comply with the unconstitutional whims of the Federal Administration. It is classic extortion and nothing less. *Why it is Extortion* As the current Congress is made up of legislators in which only 6.8% of House members and 3% of Senate members have any experience in the profession of Health Care, the goal is NOT as stated, to provide quality health care to Americans who are otherwise without coverage today. *The goal is to seize control of 1/7th of the total U.S. economy*, the Health Care industry, and all of that revenue, taking it away from the private sector under the management of Health Care professionals and placing it under the command and control of the Federal Government. Because a majority of States, businesses and citizens oppose ObamaCare and the gross expansion of Federal intrusions into the highly specialized field of health care, where matters of life and death are beyond the constitutional authority of the Federal Government, ObamaCare was established as a means to illegally force States, businesses and citizens to comply with the Federal seizing of 1/7th of the U.S. economy, or face stiff penalties from the I.R.S. which are already ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Further, to coerce the American people to comply, the Obama Administration is using well-known tactics to threaten, intimidate, coerce and otherwise force an unwilling society to accept socialized medicine or face the consequences from an increasingly tyrannical government. It is a blatant extortion racket> It is against the law>. It is unconstitutional on its face and the people simply must deny the Obama Administration its will to destroy not only Health Care in America, but freedom and liberty itself. Every American is a Victim with Standing Although the following post once found on the Affordable Healthcare Act Facebook page is not confirmed with the author, who remains unknown at this moment, we believe that the post nonetheless represents a real and accurate depiction of how ObamaCare is intended to work for the government, and against the people of the United States. I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 Silver Plan and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I opt-out and chose to continue along with no insurance._I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M.__informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the REPERCUSSIONS PORTION for non-payment of yearly fine_._First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with Non-Payment and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home._ You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy Automatically withdraw your penalties weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is Free or even Affordable. (as posted on the Facebook page without edit) Because every American, every State and every business is negatively affected by the unconstitutional ObamaCare Act, each has legal standing to bring charges against the perpetrators, including criminal charges related to extortion and fraud via the unconstitutional process used to place the Act in effect. Under 1946 Rules of Procedure, both Criminal and Civil, the critical portions on legal standing follow; * The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong. * Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech. * significant economic injury or burden is sufficient to provide standing to sue, but in most situations a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge policies or programs that she is forced to support. As every State, individual and business is penalized, threatened and/or fined by the terms present in ObamaCare, declared by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional in its current form, every legal American has proper legal standing for a cause of action against the perpetrators of a blatant intent to coerce and extort private property under a massive abuse of government power.
*Further, the courts effort to re-write the Act as a constitutional effort to lay and collect taxes is itself unconstitutional and the courts have no legislative authority whatsoever under Article III <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fconstitution%2Farticleiii&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>> of the US Constitution.*
Violations of the Bill of Rights ObamaCare violations of specific protections in the Bill of Rights are simply too numerous to list here. However, most critical is the direct violations related to States Rights under Amendment X, individual Rights under Amendment IX, the Right of the people to be secure in their property under Amendment IV and the Right to due process under Amendment V, before being deprived of any Life, Liberty or Property. *ObamaCare is a punitive Act intended to coerce Americans into complying with a government seizure of 1/7th of the US economy*, resulting in government control over life and death decisions concerning the private health interest of individuals. As such, it is an Act of extortion and every Citizen has the Right and the Duty to rise up against it. In the following remedy section of this document, we must begin with the general understanding that in a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the States and the people are under no legal, moral or ethical obligation to adhere to laws or government policies and mandates which are in themselves, unconstitutional and at odds with the public interest as stated in our Charters of Freedom. Remedy 1 The House of Representatives Because ALL bills pertaining to revenue via Congress's power to lay and collect taxes must originate in the House, ObamaCare originated in the US Senate as NOT a tax bill, ObamaCare was passed via unconstitutional process and is VOID (without legal force) in its current form. The current shut down of the Federal Government resulting from the Senate strategy to simply stonewall the House, just as they did during the unconstitutional passage of ObamaCare, presents a momentary window of opportunity to remedy the entire situation and hold people accountable for their blatant effort to extort private property from the States, businesses and the American people. To capitalize on this window of opportunity, House Republicans must be convinced to keep the Federal Government shut down until such time that the Senate is forced to pass a budget which does not include any funding for ObamaCare.
HOUSE DIRECTORY HERE -http://www.house.gov/representatives/ <http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Frepresentatives%2F&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D> <http://www.house.gov/representatives/<http://mail.zianet.com/cgi-bin/sqwebmail?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Frepresentatives%2F&;timestamp=1381290111&md5=yy9STIMo8DxyVm4V25cDOg%3D%3D>>
The debt ceiling battle will have to take place by or before October 17, 2013. It is the intention of the Obama Administration and the Democrat led Senate to continue to stonewall the House on ObamaCare until the House is up against the wall on the debt ceiling on the 17th. House Republicans simply cannot fold like a cheap lawn chair this time. They must hold the line for the American people and completely defund ObamaCare, not delay it.
NEWLY ADDED: SEE also: