Secession fever spikes in five states as conservatives seek to escape blue rule

Patriots are reminded that, regardless what the Roberts Supreme Court wants everybody to think about the constitutionally of Obamacare, including the Obamacare insurance mandate, activist justices seemingly "overlooked" the following about Obamacare imo.

From related threads…

Previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific powers to regulate either INTRAstate healthcare or insurance, not even if insurance buyer and seller are domiciled in different states. (Insurance is contract, not commerce. Congress therefore has no Commerce Clause power (1.8.3) to regulate insurance. See fourth item in following list.)

"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.
"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.
"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 within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” —Linder v. United States, 1925.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people with the states, not the feds.

”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis later put it this way about the "laboratories of democracy," the unique powers of the sovereign states to serve the people, depending on what the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Note that constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.

So why is the unconstitutionally big federal government now involved in seemingly all aspects of domestic policy since one of the very powers that the states have actually expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds to dictate domestic policy is to run the US Mail Service?

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
”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.

Regarding widespread unconstitutional federal taxing and spending, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congress’s favor imo.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

In other words, the unconstitutionally big, deep state federal government that is trying to control everybody's lives today is based on the scandalous, politically correct “repeal” of 10A by FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices in Willard imo.

The remedy for the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government oppressing everybody under its boots…

Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's already excellent work for MAGA, not KAGA, but will also do this.

New lawmakers also need to promise to support PDJT in surrendering state powers that the feds have been stealing from the states back to the states, including putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

And to make such changes permanent, patriots need to further support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)

"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy, [...]” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The Progressive Movement 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
- "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.
- "13th Amendment, Section 1:
  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
- "16th Amendment:
  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution imo, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. That amendment also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"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.
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me

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.