Posted on 05/18/2014 11:13:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?
On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.
Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.
The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.
The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.
The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.
Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.
The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.
“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”
In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.
Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”
Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GOP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”
Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”
According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.
Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.
For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.
I think I’ve stated before in so many words....when the chief law enforcement agency ignores the law,then there is no law.
There is NO “Maybe” about it, he IS unconstitutional and needs to be impeached ASAP. Stop kicking the can down the road and get on with it.
I’m interested.
How would that work in today’s environment?
Ophonybama and his administration has Cloward-Plivened us!
He has so overwhelmed the “system” that the Congress cannot get on top of any one of the Ophonybama’s flagrant law breaking actions or constitutional violations before yet another scandal is brought to light.
This is, of course, by design! I’d wager that if we were able to get our hands on them, the recordings of the inner circle goings on would lay out the administration’s step-by-step plan to totally overwhelm the system.
Furthermore, they plan to keep it overwhelmed until Ophonybama is finished with us, and the USA is reduced to a second rate power.
We might be able to stop him, but it will take a lot of courageous people calling him out!
Maybe Roberts will be willing to take one for the Gipper?
And rule for We the People, the US Constitution and against Ophonybama?
Just to see what will happen?
We could pray for something like that to happen!
Most troubling, isn’t it?
Not to mention that virtually every executive branch department in the federal government is arming itself to the teeth!
What is up with that?
Boehner and the Republican leadership have no balls, Dave! No balls!
Parliamentary law is much abused in today’s political environment. The Establishment Republicans abuse parliamentary law at the precinct, county, state, and national level conventions just as the Democrats do even more so at their conventons. These entrenched and challenger political parties get away with such abuses because the grassroots voters are too few and ill prepared to challenge and defeat such abuses. The American educational system has done too good of a job of keeping young and old citizens ignorant about their individual and group powers to wield parliamentary law.
The solution is for enough people to get determined enough to educate themselves and each other about their powers under parliamentary law and organize to meet on a frequent basis around a very few and fundamental constitutional issues which the vast majority can reach consensus upon. They have to keep the group’s political palnks in their political platform few enough to maintain a strong group consensus, and agree to disagree on all other political issues which can break up the group.
Having organized around the key and perpetual constitutional issues, the group/s can exercise their rights at the local government meetings and begin to put their own members into the local political offices and challenge the top down candidates appointed by the major parties’ state committees. At that point things get real interesting as the establkishment elites of the major parties discover they are losing control of their voting precincts, local conventions, and local governments.
As your group secures control of the political meetings and enough government offices, it then becomes possible to introduce and sometimes pass legislation returning certain fundamental rights to the control of local governments now controlled by the representatives of your own local political organizations. The right to form grand juries who may then indict government officials for corruption and unconstitutional acts is one of the foremost rights to regain. Making U.S. Senators accountable to the State governments and the citizens is another key objective. Holding the judicial branch accountable for unconstitutional acts with impeachments is another avenue of reform. But securing control of local government and respect for parliamentary law is mandatory in order to pursue the larger issues.
Evil will leak through the most tightly crafted laws every time!
I agree that your solution is the ideal long run solution.
What do we do in the meantime?
And how do you think we should go about keeping a lid on those who disrespect our laws and our constitution will be?
“And how do you think we should go about keeping a lid on those who disrespect our laws and our constitution will be?”
So long as there is no legislative, executive, or judicial accountability, there can be no lid to keep on those who disrespect the law and the Constitution. At best there can only be resistance in the courts and elsewhere in society until and unless accountability to the Constitution and the laws is resumed. Such resistance is what we are seeing in the present court case/s.
One of the great problems is the Democrat-socialist-communist domination of the legal profession. Conservatives are being systematically excluded from the legal profession from the time they enter college to the time they seek clients. Time and time again elections are held in which there are no candidates from the Republican Party or other conservatives seeking election as a judge. Conservatives are effectively ceding control of the judiciary to the most radical and unconstitutional jurists imaginable. This circumstance must change if justice is ever to prevail.
OK, thanks.
Thank you for a well-reasoned and thought-out response.
It took the LIEberals the better part of one hundred fifty years to gain the kind of control they now have over our lives and fortunes.
Since all we conservatives have left is our sacred honor, we’d best hunker down for a long haul to return the USA to a Constitutional Republic.
If we can last long enough, it may well take us a hundred and fifty years to get there.
Most of America is in fact unconstitutional....
I'd be surprised if the "conservative" judges ruled that way. What the Senate did, even if it adhered to the letter of the law, clearly violated the intent of the law. If the Senate can just gut a House bill in such a manner, then why would the Founders even have bothered with an Origination Clause?
Not enough conservative judges to matter
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.