An Unprecedented Constitutional Crisis

Gun Owners of America/gunowners.org ^ | February 5, 2015 | Tim Macy

[Jack Hammer]

If the law meant anything at all in Washington, Obama would be doing time.

The president is a symbol of a grossly corrupt nation.

[Amendment10]

Regarding unconstitutional Obamacare and associated unconstitutional insurance mandate, please consider the following. As evidenced by the following excerpt, the activist justices who wrongly gave the green light to Obama had evidently ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate insurance policies.

"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Viirginia, 1869.

It has been pointed out concerning the excerpt above that the Supremes had essentially clarified that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3) doesn’t give the feds the power to regulate insurance. So I’m adding the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia to the list of excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions which indicate that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.

• ”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

• “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.