Individual mandate mutiny grows while Sen. Rubio embraces tyranny!

"Sen. Marco Rubio is urging President Barack Obama to support his bill that would delay Obamacare’s individual mandate until six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally."

What I would like to ask Senator Rubio is: Under what provision of our Constitution is Congress authorized to impose a fine upon a citizen who exercises a fundamental right to purchase health insurance to meet their personal medical and health care needs and refuses “federally approved” health insurance?

Does the Senator from the great State of Florida disagree with what our Supreme Court has stated? That a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

And if Senator Rubio agrees with what the Court stated above, then why does he agree to allow the federal government to circumvent this fundamental right ”… six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally”?

"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618

Too many people are willing to jump out of the pan in into the fire!

And who would attend a convention if one were to be called today? Could Madison be right? Let us take a look at what happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a state convention was called.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very snakes who are now causing our misery!

The suit went on to charge

“there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

And so, the very snakes who cause our miseries would dominate the convention and blackmail the states because of the states existing un-funded state pension funds. Keep in mind the Revolutionary War debt of the states was assumed by the federal government as part of the States signing onto our existing Constitution!

With the various State Pension funds being under funded and their total obligations at about $3.5 trillion, would the state delegates chosen to a second constitutional convention not be susceptible to granting extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded debt liabilities?

And when such a proposal is brought back to the States for Ratification, are we to believe the “progressive” leadership of bankrupted states like California would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

I believe these questions are valid, and ought to be resolved in such a manner as to remove the threats which are very real.

In any event, I am very disappointed that Mark Levin would, perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of a simple oversight, advance the idea of calling a second constitutional convention to propose amendments to our Constitution, when a failure to enforce our exiting Constitution is the cause of our misery, and is a cause which cannot be corrected by calling a convention to add more amendments to our Constitution. Our problem is in fact a despotic and tyrannical federal government, which is the same problem faced by our founding fathers. And what did our founding fathers do? There were basically three steps: redress of grievances, the Declaration of Independence, and finally a justifiable ass whipping for King George.

JWK

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?

Let me clarify. I have no problem with the amendment process in which Congress proposes an amendment to the states for ratification. My problem is with an Article V convention being called which allows the entire Constitution to be re-written by those who attend the convention, including the rule by which their doings may become the law of the land.

The fact is we don’t even know the mod of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE: Articles of Confederation

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

JWK

John, you are confusing a convention of states with a constitutional convention. There is a huge difference. The process is described here:

http://conventionofstates.com/news/constitutional-convention-vs-convention-states-0

There is virtually NO CHANCE of a runaway convention if done correctly. Please take a look at this:

http://conventionofstates.com/learn-why-convention-safe

The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.

It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.

Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook/).

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris at http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp).

American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.

We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.
.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.