Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA) A.K.A. Obama Care
Obama Care is not a right. Rights come from God, not man. The Declaration of Independence, which is still part of our nation's organic law, clearly states that Governments are instituted among men to protect our God given rights. ( Click Here to see Declaration in Organic Law )
Rights must be of a nature where all people can enjoy them at the same time, i.e., the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not a guarantee of happiness or of equal out comes). God given rights are never dependent on the property, money, or energy of others. Taxes for the most part come from citizens like our neighbors and our neighbor’s money should never fund the basis of anyone’s rights.
Any law passed by Congress and signed into law MUST be rooted in an enumerated power enshrined in our U.S. Constitution that was ratified by the citizens in the state ratifying conventions. There is no enumerated power that gives the federal government authority over the health care of our citizens.
In Federalist Paper #48, Alexander Hamilton said,
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid."
Hamilton’s statement in Federalist Paper # 48 is supported by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS):
Chief Justice John Marshall stated in MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, (1819):
“The Government of the Union then ... is, emphatically and truly, a Government of the people. In form and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit. -
This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent [not] to be enforced by all.” (Emphasis added)
Chief Justice John Marshall also stated:
"If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."
Actions by Chief Justice John Roberts and the SCOTUS
The federal government argued that for the private health insurance market to function effectively, with affordable premiums for everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions; currently healthy people must participate in the market as part of the risk pool.
In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that upholding the individual mandate will not leave any meaningful limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause power, the federal government argued that the appropriate check on Congress’s exercise of its legislative powers is the electorate, not the courts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The SCOTUS should act as a check against unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.
In Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. 1 (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall stated,
"They [Inspection laws] act upon the subject [the flow of commerce] before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or of commerce among the States, and prepare it for that purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, 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.
No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."
(Emphasis added) Notice laws governing health are outside of the general or federal government authority
Chief Justice Roberts relied on the following Supreme Court Case in his ruling on Penalties vs. Taxing powers: N.L.R.B. v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
301 U.S. 1
Using this previous SCOTUS case Judge Roberts agreed that: “The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.” (Emphasis added)
In the case of Obama Care, Justice Roberts rewrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) in order to try and save the act from being unconstitutional. Roberts changed the word “penalty” to “tax”. Obama Care would not have been passed if there had been an additional tax required to make the Act more actuarially sound. Justice Roberts rewrite of the Act making the penalty a tax was a violation of the first sentence in our Constitution:
Article I, Section 1 states:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) stated in:
U.S. Supreme Court Case: VALLELY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS CO., 254 U.S. 348 (1920), is a good case showing the limits of judicial authority.
“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot [go] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”
SCOTUS stated in: OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
“Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law.”
Blackstone stated in his Commentary on the law that Judges must first discover the law (according to the intent of the lawgiver), then expound on the law, and then make a judgment under the law.
Hamilton said in Federalist # 78:
“The judiciary, however, has no influence over either the sword or the purse. It directs neither the strength nor wealth of society. It can take no active resolution whatever.
The judiciary may be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, merely judgment. It even depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.”
This is exactly what our early courts understood their rolls to be, merely judgment according to the intent of the law giver, and with regard to our U.S. Constitution, judgment according to the understanding of the citizens who ratified it at the State Ratifying Conventions.
Judge Roberts and the Court majority, strayed from their sole roll of judgment when they rewrote Obama Care according to an earlier SCOTUS ruling that preferred to uphold Congressional laws that were in conflict with the citizen’s Constitution.
This type of judicial action violates a judges “Good Behavior” which is the only requirement for a judge to continue in office.
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper 78:
“To assure judges will act responsibly, they are liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. If convicted, a judge may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other.”
Alexander Hamilton also stated in Federalist Paper 78:
Where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, is in opposition to that of the people, as declared in the Constitution, judges should be governed by the latter [the Constitution] rather than the former [unconstitutional will of the Congress]. They should regulate their decision by the fundamental laws [our Constitution] rather than those that are not fundamental...”
Hamilton said, in Federalist Paper 65, that:
“Impeachment is the bridal in the hands of Congress over the executive servants of the government (judges are included as executive servants).”
Justice Story, the Father of American jurisprudence stated:
The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are ... what are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests… unconstitutional opinions and attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power." (Emphasis added)
This is contrary to what you have heard from an uninformed or deceiving mainstream media that claims that one must break a law in order to be impeached.
It is time that “We the People”, begin replacing those public servants who pass unconstitutional laws in order to gain more power and control over our citizens, like that of taking control of our health care.
Public servants must also be elected who understand the need to impeach and remove those out of control judges who sustain the very unconstitutional laws that allow Congress to gain more control over the people. In the United States of America the people must control Congress and the Courts, not the other way around.
Our Declaration of Independence states that our government is under the consent of the people.
Thomas Jefferson said:
"Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people."
George Washington said,
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Ronald Reagan said:
“Anyone who gets in bed with the government will get more than a good night sleep.”
Prepared by Richard Gruetter,
Founder of Preserve Our Constitution, Inc.
For comments or questions email:constitution1776@bellsouth.net
Comments