Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pearls Before Swine; All
"Only legislation—primarily the ACA—will remain."

Pearls Before Swine, do you know why the Founding States made the federal Constitution, particularly the significance of healthcare not being included in Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers?

On second thought, ignore that question. The following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions indicate that, regardless what activist justices want everbody to think about the constitutionality of federal Obamacare Democratcare, the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.

And regardless that Democrats and RINOs will argue that since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress cannot establish a national healthcare program, then they can do it. But the Supreme Court has also addressed that kind of foolish thinking concerning the federal government's constitutionally delegated powers.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Also, if you want, Judge Andrew Napolitano will read Section 8 to you; video is a little over 3 minutes. Judge Napolitano will then emphasize what the Supreme Court excerpts indicate, that the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to officially address intrastate healthcare issues.

Judge Napolitano & the Constitution

The bottom line is that there's a lot of criminal activity going on in the constitutionally limited power federal government imo. Voters need to wake up and do something about it.

63 posted on 07/06/2014 1:49:25 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10

Those are extremely interesting legal references, thanks. The one from 1936 is especially clear. People might argue that the older ones referencing “health laws” aren’t quite relevant, because the whole concept of government provided health care was unknown, and the reference might have been to things like rat control or quarantines. But, the 1936 quote is very specific.

I’ll listen to the Judge.


96 posted on 07/07/2014 5:46:14 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson