Exactly!
Yep. It was illegal from the get-go.
While this may be true, it seems that most continue to miss the main point.
There is no Enumerated Power in the Constitution that allows the national government to be involved in programs to meet the health care needs of individual Americans.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
- James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution
Great summary! The law that Obama changed is not the exact same law the SCOTUS created, and, the President cannot single-handedly change a law after it was passed, signed and reviewed by the SCOTUS. The whole mess is unconstitutional. This article needs to go viral.
Finally! Obamacare, if a tax, is unconstitutional!
“Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t.”
Before it was signed it was carefully stated to NOT be a tax. Only when the SC ruled did it become a tax.
ping for later
Excellent argument. BUT, why so long after the fact and not until America has been brought to her knees is this finally being brought to the front?
AND, it seems to me that this could and SHOULD have been a republican battle cry, shouted every day from day one.
The Politics of the Government Shutdown
The Budget Fight and Obama’s Vindictive Streak (Jonah Goldberg)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
You are 100% correct. It’s unconstitutional, and should be struck down.
Unfortunately, the Supremes decided to make it constitutional, and here we sit. The bums who want a free ride, and take the RAT buses in to vote - won.
The so-called Conservatives and RINOs who were too lazy to vote, stabbed us all in the back. Simply stated, there are more of US than there are of THEM.
But, based upon the voter roles, most of US are too #$%@& lazy to get off our collective asses and to the polls to cast our vote. I suspect we are among the minority of conservatives to did vote.
I thought that that fraud Harry Reid took a bill he got from the House, stripped its original contents out, inserted his piece of crap into it, thereby making it a bill that ‘originated’ in the House.
The dumb lawyer in a SC robe, has it FUBAR.
Of note is the first case in this review that tests the Origination Clause. They are unclear as to whether the Court would consider this a "technicality" or would scuttle the whole thing over it.
On the one hand, the Senate took a bill that originated by Charlie Rangel in the House, but gutted it entirely and replaced it with Obamacare. On the other hand, if the Court doesn't uphold the spirit of the Origination Clause, they are effectively removing the power of the purse from the House forever more.
-PJ
Compliance with Obamacare violates Doctor Patient Confidentiality.
Obamacare is in violation of the Doctors Hippocratic Oath as follows:
” - - - All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. - - - “
Another line of legal reasoning involves comparing Obamacare to all the do’s and don’ts the Federal Government has put into Law about our “privacy rights” such as HIPPA, questions that future employers can and cannot ask at one’s job interview, etc.
A criminal at arrest time has the “right to remain silent” which is not an option for any of us - - - , as our Doctors have been forced by the damn Federal Government to betray us over our very loud protests.
Class Action Law Suit anyone?
Might be something for Senators Cruz and Lee to file on our behalf ?!
To sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans that Obamacare was not.
Once again, the president is not telling the truth about Obamacare. The Supreme Court did not endorse it. The Supreme Court said it could only conceivably be sustained as a tax. It still had to pass the Constitution’s tests for valid taxation. It failed.
Andy McCarthy nails it. Hopefully our GOP congress is listening and will implement this strategy to invalidate this improper 'tax'.
One of the most important things going on right now. Weekend BUMP !
The final step which National Review omits is that unconstitutional laws are void upon passage. From Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256), " The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [My emphasis]"
No one is bound to obey the ACA. It was unconstitutional upon passage, due to violation of Article 1, Section 7. The People must resist this tyrannical overreach.
James R. McClure Jr.
Anti-federalist Democrat candidate for IN9
PING !
PING !