ACTION

If you had a chance to stop Obamacare, AND advance the Tenth Amendment
right of the various states, to interpose and even to nullify actions
that restrict the liberties of individual citizens, would you want to
take it? 
There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S.
Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking
review by the nationâs highest court of the constitutionality of
Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of
these cases. But one case might not make the cut. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision
that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance
policy approved by the federal government. 
The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in
the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit
Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare
probably would've lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal
"standing" to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a
Democratic President, ruled that . . . 
 Virginia wasn't harmed because the individual mandate doesn't require
the Commonwealth to do anything. 
 Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional
federal laws. 

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment? 
Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even
nullify, those laws which . . . 
 impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND 
 are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution? 

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has
potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it. 

In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also
individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of
state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a
dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions
tracing back to the 1930's.

Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with
more Justices who'd rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal
programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high
court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor
of FDR's programs. It is called "The stitch in time that saved nine."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine>

While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt's judicial
manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate
Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the
Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing
food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government,
because even though he wasn't selling anything, his actions affected
interstate commerce. 

Talk about tortured logic!
Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so
that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on
individuals, requiring them to buy a private goods or service (a health
insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate
commerce clause. 

Shouldn't the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens?
Can't they see to it that their rights are protected from federal
overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate? 

The 4th Circuit Court said NO !

And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we've been
waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for
INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth
Amendment. 

In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old
precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by
states. But here's how the Court ruled in Bond . . . 

âFederalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States
to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative
of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times
without having to rely solely upon the political processes that
control a remote central power.â

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state
government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power. 

Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state
passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any
person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to
purchase a health insurance policy. 

We believe the Commonwealth's petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th
appeals court's objections. Do you? 

Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the
Bond case.
<http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Bond_Amicus.pdf>

They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They
stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief. 

Right now, we believe that . . . 

 Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme
Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits 
 The Commonwealth's arguments are unique and important as to the
constitutionality of Obamacare 

But, we ALSO believe there's something MORE at stake here . . . 

. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our
rights.

A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia's odds,
if only we had the resources to file it.
<https://secure.downsizedcfoundation.org/contribute/>