johnwk
12-15-2010, 10:38 AM
Well, the ink wasn’t even dry on the Court’s ruling striking down part of Obamacare before Obama’s Justice Dept. announced it will challenge the Court’s ruling.
See: Health-Care Ruling Against Law's Insurance Mandate to Be Appealed by U.S. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/health-care-ruling-to-be-appealed-by-u-s-justice-department.html)
In the Court’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down as being unconstitutional that part of Obamacare which mandates the people of the various united States are required to purchase health insurance.
As noted in the above mentioned article:
“In his 42-page opinion, Hudson said the “unchecked expansion” of congressional power represented by the insurance requirement “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” No Supreme Court decision has authorized Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote.”
It is absolutely amazing that Obama’s Justice Department would appeal the Judge’s ruling when our federal Constitution in its preamble declares our founding fathers clear intentions for adopting our Constitution was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to themselves and their “Posterity“.
Does Obama and his Justice Department really believe the right of an individual to make their own healthcare decisions is not included in the term “liberty”? Are we to really believe, as our federal Department of Justice would have us believe, that our founding fathers when granting a power to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the several States were contemplating the delegation of authority to allow Congress to enter the various states and mandate the people therein purchase health insurance or any other particular article of trade? If so, then why are we told in Federalist Paper No. 45 ?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Seems to be irrefutable that the people of the various States, when adopting our Constitution, intentionally sought to preserve to their immediate State Legislature’s exclusive power over those matters which directly affect their lives, liberties, and property, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of each respective State. As a matter of fact, the people of the united States specifically decided to emphasize the preservation of rights “retained by the people” and the supremacy of the various State Legislature’s reserved powers when they adopted our Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments which unequivocally informs Obama and his Justice Department that:
1.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
2
“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.”
Can it really be, as Obama and his Justice Department would have us believe, that our founding fathers when emphatically declaring the preservation of rights retained by the people, and emphasizing the supremacy of powers reserved by the various State Legislatures, intended these expressed intentions to be fritted away and subjugated by Congress’s power to regulate commerce “among” the States”?
And just what is the meaning of “commerce” which Congress may regulate when it occurs “among the several States”? The question is of vital importance because a fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, “Ordinary meaning, generally“
The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was understood to mean the transportation and/or exchange of goods. In effect, Congress was given the power as it relates to the various states, to insure free trade among the States --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.
In U.S. vs. Lopez, after reciting the meaning “commerce” from various contemporary sources during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, our Supreme Court summarized the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution:
“Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”
While it may be said that Congress has power over the traffic of articles as the move among the States, it is nothing short of contemptuous reasoning and a despotic power grab for Obama and his Justice Department to suggest the power in question also permit’s the federal government to require the people of the various States to purchase a particular article of trade. And why is it contemptuous reasoning and a despotic attempted power grab for Obama and his Justice Department to assert the power to regulate commerce involves the power to require the people of the various states to purchase a particular article? Because the people have never debated and then intentionally consented to such power being exercise by our federal government! And Article V of our Constitution requires the people’s consent via the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, prior to our federal government’s exercise of any new powers. In fact, the resounding truth is, 21 states have officially declared their objection to Obamacare which means the requirements of Article V of our Constitution cannot be meet, and thus, Obama and his Justice Department are acting in defiance of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted!
Bottom line is: Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!
JWK
America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of PROGRESSIVE ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!
See: Health-Care Ruling Against Law's Insurance Mandate to Be Appealed by U.S. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/health-care-ruling-to-be-appealed-by-u-s-justice-department.html)
In the Court’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down as being unconstitutional that part of Obamacare which mandates the people of the various united States are required to purchase health insurance.
As noted in the above mentioned article:
“In his 42-page opinion, Hudson said the “unchecked expansion” of congressional power represented by the insurance requirement “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” No Supreme Court decision has authorized Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote.”
It is absolutely amazing that Obama’s Justice Department would appeal the Judge’s ruling when our federal Constitution in its preamble declares our founding fathers clear intentions for adopting our Constitution was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to themselves and their “Posterity“.
Does Obama and his Justice Department really believe the right of an individual to make their own healthcare decisions is not included in the term “liberty”? Are we to really believe, as our federal Department of Justice would have us believe, that our founding fathers when granting a power to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the several States were contemplating the delegation of authority to allow Congress to enter the various states and mandate the people therein purchase health insurance or any other particular article of trade? If so, then why are we told in Federalist Paper No. 45 ?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Seems to be irrefutable that the people of the various States, when adopting our Constitution, intentionally sought to preserve to their immediate State Legislature’s exclusive power over those matters which directly affect their lives, liberties, and property, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of each respective State. As a matter of fact, the people of the united States specifically decided to emphasize the preservation of rights “retained by the people” and the supremacy of the various State Legislature’s reserved powers when they adopted our Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments which unequivocally informs Obama and his Justice Department that:
1.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
2
“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.”
Can it really be, as Obama and his Justice Department would have us believe, that our founding fathers when emphatically declaring the preservation of rights retained by the people, and emphasizing the supremacy of powers reserved by the various State Legislatures, intended these expressed intentions to be fritted away and subjugated by Congress’s power to regulate commerce “among” the States”?
And just what is the meaning of “commerce” which Congress may regulate when it occurs “among the several States”? The question is of vital importance because a fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, “Ordinary meaning, generally“
The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was understood to mean the transportation and/or exchange of goods. In effect, Congress was given the power as it relates to the various states, to insure free trade among the States --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.
In U.S. vs. Lopez, after reciting the meaning “commerce” from various contemporary sources during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified, our Supreme Court summarized the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution:
“Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”
While it may be said that Congress has power over the traffic of articles as the move among the States, it is nothing short of contemptuous reasoning and a despotic power grab for Obama and his Justice Department to suggest the power in question also permit’s the federal government to require the people of the various States to purchase a particular article of trade. And why is it contemptuous reasoning and a despotic attempted power grab for Obama and his Justice Department to assert the power to regulate commerce involves the power to require the people of the various states to purchase a particular article? Because the people have never debated and then intentionally consented to such power being exercise by our federal government! And Article V of our Constitution requires the people’s consent via the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, prior to our federal government’s exercise of any new powers. In fact, the resounding truth is, 21 states have officially declared their objection to Obamacare which means the requirements of Article V of our Constitution cannot be meet, and thus, Obama and his Justice Department are acting in defiance of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted!
Bottom line is: Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!
JWK
America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of PROGRESSIVE ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!