States declaring Obamacare null and void? Good. It’s about freaken time!

[johnwk]

.

SEE: Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20/idaho-nullify-obamas-health-care-law/)

BOISE, Idaho -- “After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.”


It is an irrefutable fact and as clear as the distinction between day and night, that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to provide for the health care needs of the American people and regulate the decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make with regard to their health care needs

It is also as clear as can be that our Constitution under Article 5 requires the consent of the “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof “ prior to the exercised of any new powers by Congress.

And it cannot be disputed that 26 States have officially expressed their rejection of Obamacare; that it is beyond the powers delegated to Congress, and this confirms that Obamacare cannot receive the consent of the necessary number of States to delegate to Congress the powers which would be exercised under Obamacare!

With all these facts being irrefutable, the words of the noteworthy Kent appear to be very applicable with respect to Obamacare:.

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Indeed, our very own Supreme Court has stated:

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Bottom line is, until it can be demonstrated that the people of the united States have knowingly and willingly delegated the explicit powers and mandates which would be exercised under Obamacare, it is safe to say Obamacare is “null and void”.

For an eloquent review of this very subject see: How To Treat Unconstitutional Acts of Congress (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/) majority vote in Congress!

[Missileman]

.

SEE: Idaho Set to Nullify Obama's Health Care Law (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20/idaho-nullify-obamas-health-care-law/)

BOISE, Idaho -- “After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho's Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama's signature bill null and void.”


It is an irrefutable fact and as clear as the distinction between day and night, that the American People have never debated and then knowingly granted a power to Congress to provide for the health care needs of the American people and regulate the decisions and choices which the people of the united States may make with regard to their health care needs

It is also as clear as can be that our Constitution under Article 5 requires the consent of the “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof “ prior to the exercised of any new powers by Congress.

And it cannot be disputed that 26 States have officially expressed their rejection of Obamacare; that it is beyond the powers delegated to Congress, and this confirms that Obamacare cannot receive the consent of the necessary number of States to delegate to Congress the powers which would be exercised under Obamacare!

With all these facts being irrefutable, the words of the noteworthy Kent appear to be very applicable with respect to Obamacare:.

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Indeed, our very own Supreme Court has stated:

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Bottom line is, until it can be demonstrated that the people of the united States have knowingly and willingly delegated the explicit powers and mandates which would be exercised under Obamacare, it is safe to say Obamacare is “null and void”.

For an eloquent review of this very subject see: How To Treat Unconstitutional Acts of Congress (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1)

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/) majority vote in Congress!

PB will be in here momentarily screaming about activist legislators...:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Seems the left was not expecting Obamacre to be ruled unconstitutional

That should tell you alot




snip

Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals' great achievement -- ObamaCare -- are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing. The ruling is. . . um. . . thinking of a case liberals hate. . . um. . . just like Bush v. Gore ! (Except it has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause or any other aspect of that case.) It is, we are told, "curious," "odd," or "unconventional."

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork. After all, the recent mocking by the left of conservatives' reverence for the Constitution suggests they are mystified that a 200-year old document could get in the way of their historic achievement. They are truly nonplussed, and so they vamp, not with reasoned analysis but with an outpouring of adjectives.


Liberals are particularly perturbed by Judge Vinson's ruling on severability, the determination as to whether the individual mandate is so central to the law as to make the law unrecognizable and unenforceable without it. But here, the left has only the administration and the Democratic Congress to blame. From the opinion (the defendants are the Obama officials):

Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act's health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms "cannot be severed from the [individual mandate]."

Oops. Not some crazy judge, but the administration was the source of the notion that the individual mandate can't be severed from the rest of the law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/left_unreasoned_and_unprepared.html

[bullypulpit]

More GOP bullshit and histrionics. The Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to regulate commerce. Article 1 Section 8.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_4bLNM0axE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[darin]

does it give the Feds the power to MANDATE commerce?

[johnwk]

More GOP bullshit and histrionics. The Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to regulate commerce. Article 1 Section 8.



And what is the definition of "commerce" as the word is used in our Constitution?


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally



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)



JWK

[fj1200]

More GOP bullshit and histrionics. The Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to regulate commerce. Article 1 Section 8.

It's a shame you miss the point completely. It's also ironic that you use a document expressly written to LIMIT the scope of government to justify it's EXPANSION. Silly.

[avatar4321]

More GOP bullshit and histrionics. The Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to regulate commerce. Article 1 Section 8.


Our health isnt commerce

[bullypulpit]

It's a shame you miss the point completely. It's also ironic that you use a document expressly written to LIMIT the scope of government to justify it's EXPANSION. Silly.

Ummm...you really haven't read the document very thoroughly, have you? The Articles of Confederation were a disaster, which is why the constitutional convention was convened. The Articles gave the bulk of power to the states, as a result, the nascent United States was less a nation than a loose confederation, each state following its own path. The Constitution was written and framed to create a strong national government. Article 1 Section 8 is is extensive list of powers granted the federal government.


And what is the definition of "commerce" as the word is used in our Constitution?


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally




JWK

Ahhh...original intent. Commerce involves the sale of goods and services. health insurance is a service that is sold, hence it falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Again,

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zdCUpiI1MSA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[darin]

Ahhh...original intent. Commerce involves the sale of goods and services. health insurance is a service that is sold, hence it falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Again,

You answered a question he didn't ask. Our HEALTH is not commerce. If I don't WANT to seek health care, or treatment for my health it's none of the gov't business unless I become a threat to another's freedom/liberty.

The Constitution gives NO power to mandate purchase of goods. There's NO opt-out. You're going to bring up car insurance - until the government mandates I buy car insurance whether I own a car or not, it's apples to oranges.

But let's explore that scenario...

Would you support the government requiring every adult citizen or resident to purchase auto insurance whether they drove or not?

[Missileman]

Ahhh...original intent. Commerce involves the sale of goods and services. health insurance is a service that is sold, hence it falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution.




So in your mis-informed opinion, the federal government can make each US citizen by a GM car?

[darin]

So in your mis-informed opinion, the federal government can make each US citizen by a GM car?

And quite honestly, literally, health insurance is NOT a service bought and sold. Health care (partially) PAYS for health service. The service is not provided by the insurance companies - it's provided by medical professionals.

Another good 'what it' - Would libs support the government mandating people buy pre-paid legal 'insurance'?

[Patriot311]

This is good news indeed.

[fj1200]

Ummm...you really haven't read the document very thoroughly, have you? The Articles of Confederation were a disaster, which is why the constitutional convention was convened. The Articles gave the bulk of power to the states, as a result, the nascent United States was less a nation than a loose confederation, each state following its own path. The Constitution was written and framed to create a strong national government. Article 1 Section 8 is is extensive list of powers granted the federal government.

That doesn't address my comment, it just dances around the subject trying to create justification for something that is antithetical to the constitution. The act is poorly written and poorly thought out; if Euro style HC is the goal then they should have attempted to pass it rather than piling poorly thought out regulations on top of poorly thought out regulations.

[red states rule]

I hope Dems like BP continue to flip off the voters until Nov 2012 and ignore what they are saying

Cost is the biggest issue with the voters yet Obamacare is increasing the cost whle rationing the care




As they have from the beginning of the health care debate, voters see cost reduction as more important than ensuring universal coverage.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe reducing the cost of health care is more important than making sure that everyone has health insurance. Just 29% think universal health insurance coverage is more important.

Surveys conducted over the past two years have consistently shown that voters view the biggest problem with health care to be the cost.

Yet while strong majorities of Republicans (78%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (74%) say cost reduction is the more important health care reform issue, most Democrats (51%) disagree and view universal coverage that way.

Most Political Class voters (79%) say universal coverage is more important, but 74% of those in the Mainstream take the opposing view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2011/most_voters_still_put_reducing_health_care_costs_a head_of_universal_coverage

[johnwk]

And what is the definition of "commerce" as the word is used in our Constitution?

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally


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)
JWK





Ahhh...original intent. Commerce involves the sale of goods and services. health insurance is a service that is sold, hence it falls under the commerce clause of the Constitution.


Thank you for you contemporary meaning of “commerce” but it does not apply to the word as it appears in our Constitution! Under the rules of constitutional law, the meaning of commerce within our Constitution is that which was understood during framing and ratification of our Constitution. Its meaning does not change with the passage of time unless done so via a constitutional amendment.

And yes! Under the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, we are compelled to abide by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution (each article, section, clause and amendment) was adopted. The rule is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.(numerous citations omitted) See: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law.(1992 edition), Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

So, just what is the meaning of “commerce” as used in our Constitution?

In fact, 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 between two points. In U.S. vs. Lopez, our very own Supreme Court, after quoting the use of the word “commerce” from countless contemporary sources during the time period when our Constitution was being framed and ratified, summarizes the meaning of the word as follows:

“Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”

Surely you must realize there is a vast distinction between the manufacturing of goods and once manufactured how they are shipped “among the states“.

Now that we understand the meaning of commerce within the context of our Constitution, what is the legislative intent for which the power was granted to Congress to regulate “commerce” among (not within) the States? A clue establishing the purpose is immediately found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Constitution!

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Indeed, 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.

We also find confirmation of this purpose in Federalist Paper No. 42 in which Madison states the following with regard to the power in question:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:


“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.” ___ See: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

It is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be authorizing a power to Congress to enter the States to compel the people therein to purchase a product, much less interfere with an individual’s decision making regarding their personal health care needs and choices. And this is why Judge Hudson, in Commonwealth of Virginia, et al v. Sebelius, et al and with regard to Obamacare and its provision to require individuals to purchase government approved health insurance, found it to be un-constitutional and if allowed to stand would invite an “unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

While it cannot be reasonably questioned that Congress has power over the transportation of articles as they move among the States, it is nothing short of despotic reasoning for Obama and his progressive gang on Capitol Hill to assert Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states is intended to, and does allow the federal government to enter the various states and require the people therein to purchase a particular article of trade favored by Congress.

And why is it despotic reasoning? Because Congress has never debated vesting itself with power to involve itself in the personal health care needs and the choices the people of the united States may make regarding their health care needs, and then sending an amendment to the States for ratification granting such power as required under Article V of our Constitution, in which the people’s consent must first be obtained by 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.

And what is the feeling of the various states regarding Obamacare? The incontrovertible fact is, 26 states have officially declared their objection to Obamacare which means the requirements of Article V of our Constitution cannot be meet, and thus, Obama, his Justice Department, and our progressive gang on Capitol Hill in pushing forward to impose Obamacare upon the people 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://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/) majority vote in Congress!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)