OHIO Constitution stops Obama Care in it's tracks.

[Trinity]

Obamacare has heated this nation into an inferno. Debates, complaints, lawsuits challenging its unconstitutionality, and igniting a fury over many citizens loosing their vital lifesaving healthcare coverage. Many people, whether they be individuals, businesses, or doctors, are feeling overwhelmed and trapped by this detrimental monstrosity. People from all walks of life are being harmed by loss of insurance, life saving healthcare, loss of jobs, loss of hours on their jobs forcing them into part-time work, companies are being broken, and doctors are leaving the healthcare field in mass numbers due to this outrageous “law” enacted by political pundits in Washington that either can’t or refuse to read.

While the federal government would love nothing more to make people believe they are “all powerful” or “what they say goes” or “what they say trumps the power of the states,” it simply is not true. The federal government (Washington) derives all its power from the people. The federal government would have you believe the power structure is as follows: Federal, State, Cities, Towns, and then the people. When in fact as a republic the real structure of our country since its inception has always been: We the people, Towns, Cities, States, and then the Federal Government. The federal government has NO power to enforce their “rules, regulation, laws” on the states unless the states and people allow it. Thus, the reason your state constitution trumps “federal law.” An example of that can be seen in: Mack/Printz vs United States, saying that the States are not “political subdivisions of the Federal Government” and that the feds cannot “compel the states to enforce federal laws.”


I now turn your attention to the state of Ohio. According to the Ohio State Constitution no one can be forced or fined to sign up for healthcare. This includes, but is not limited to individuals, businesses, doctors, no one! Nor can they be fined, taxed, penalized, or forced to pay by wage withholding. Whether intentional or not, the state of Ohio has given every person, business, hospital, doctor in that state the legal basis for not having to engage, nor be involved with the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

According to the Ohio State Constitution Article 1 Section 21 “Preservation Of The Freedom To Choose Health Care and Health Care Coverage” located on page 9.

According to the Ohio State Constitution Article 1 Section 21 “Preservation Of The Freedom To Choose Health Care and Health Care Coverage” located on page 9. “21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system. (emphasis mine)
(B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.
(C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.
(D) This section does not affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010; affect which services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide; affect terms and conditions of government employment; or affect any laws calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing int he health care industry.

Paying attention to section (D) under Article 1 Section 21 “Preservation Of The Freedom To Choose Health Care And Health Care Coverage” it states: “This section does not affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010″ (emphasis mine). This means anything that was law prior to the date of March 19, 2010 is not subject to Article 1 Section 21, but any law enacted after that date is subject to Article 1 Section 21. This is great news for all Ohio citizens, business owners, doctors, hospitals etc.. Why? I will answer that in just a moment.

As you know, in order for any bill to become law it requires three very important factors. It must pass the Senate, the House of Representatives, and it then must be signed by the president of the United States for it to become a “law.” Until the President has signed the legislation, it has not become law. I point out this very important fact because President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, on March 23, 2010. That was four days after the cut off date located in Article 1 Section 21 section (D) of the Ohio State Constitution. Thus, the Ohio Constitution grants every person, doctor, hospital, and business the choice not to be forced to sign up for Obamacare, nor fined for failing to sign up for it.

http://patriotsbillboard.org/ohio-constitution-stops-obamacare-in-its-tracks/

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=1&Section=21

[fj1200]

Supremacy Clause:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Supremacy Clause:
Yes and we now have a little dictator working against us that will misuse that too. -Tyr

[logroller]

Yes and we now have a little dictator working against us that will misuse that too. -Tyr
It's pretty plain text. If a state law is contrary to fed law, fed law rules supreme-- Its ALWAYS been so. Congress passed it, the Pres signed it and the Court upheld it (mostly)-- all in accordance with the constitution--yet somehow the instant case falling squarely into the EXACT concept of the supremacy clause can be equated to "misuse" leaves me shaking my head...it's just plain irrational.

[revelarts]

Supremacy Clause:

the 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."


Just as the MJ laws and others are taking back States proper authority over criminal activities. Here again the States are doing what the Supreme court has failed in it's job to do. Tell the president and congress that they DO NOT have powers that aren't granted in the Constitution.

The checks and balances to the Feds, CIC and congress are the SCOTUS, the States, Juries, and the finally the people. the people who can just refuse to obey or implement the laws in mass or finally revolt and change the federal or state gov'ts, or ignore them.

The president and congress are not gods that have to be obeyed because they've made up some new BS rules outside of the their constitutional bounds. It not legal for them to simply declare it's "the Supreme law of the land" in spite of the the clear fact that they had NO AUTHORITY to create the law based on the SAME constitution they site to make their word SUPREME.

talk about a 'heads I win tails you lose' proposition that's the ultimate, and it's not even close to what the founders proposed.

[fj1200]

Yes and we now have a little dictator working against us that will misuse that too. -Tyr

:rolleyes:


the 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."

... and it's not even close to what the founders proposed.

Nobody has cared about the 10th for about 100 years... unfortunately.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's pretty plain text. If a state law is contrary to fed law, fed law rules supreme-- Its ALWAYS been so. Congress passed it, the Pres signed it and the Court upheld it (mostly)-- all in accordance with the constitution--yet somehow the instant case falling squarely into the EXACT concept of the supremacy clause can be equated to "misuse" leaves me shaking my head...it's just plain irrational. The answer is this and it was my tagline until I recently replaced it with the quote about the Muslims. And it is exactly what Obama intends on zeroing out!!!! The Tenth Amendment was to guard against the office of the Presidency or the overall power of the federal government being used to establish a dictatorship by passing laws that usurped the Constitution and relegated the states to mere vassal subjects. Think of it like a governor on a motor if you will. -Tyr



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. ^^^^^ This was my tagline until replaced very recently. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Nobody has cared about the 10th for about 100 years... unfortunately.

Here's what is wrong with our country, when current politics will trump the COTUS - AND - no one will care. Well, not "no one". I wish Ohio would fight this to the SC if necessary, which if they won, would then set some precedent for every other state.

[fj1200]

Here's what is wrong with our country, when current politics will trump the COTUS - AND - no one will care. Well, not "no one". I wish Ohio would fight this to the SC if necessary, which if they won, would then set some precedent for every other state.

The only problem was your reference to "current." The Tenth has been ignored for quite some time but the Supremacy Clause is alive and well, as it should be. This won't go anywhere and there are likely better avenues to pursue.

[revelarts]

Nobody has cared about the 10th for about 100 years... unfortunately.




The only problem was your reference to "current." The Tenth has been ignored for quite some time but the Supremacy Clause is alive and well, as it should be. This won't go anywhere and there are likely better avenues to pursue.

No one's cared about the right to smoke pot for quite some time then the states started to edit their laws. there are other areas where the states are taking back there authority. slavery was 1st pushed back by state laws that made it illegal in northern states.

saying "no one cares" is a cop out. and a lazy man's way around a legitimate legal option.
the supreme court -as we've seen to much-- swings in the wind. a 100 years of rulings have been washed way for good and ill over the course of the past 200 years.
And I'm sure MANY people are concerned that the Feds have assumed far too much authority at this point.
time for the pendulum to swing back.



Here's what is wrong with our country, when current politics will trump the COTUS - AND - no one will care. Well, not "no one". I wish Ohio would fight this to the SC if necessary, which if they won, would then set some precedent for every other state.

here's something to consider on that as well. IMO the states should not take to the supreme courts themselves. they should just implement there law or ignore the feds laws as they see fit until the FEDS decide they want to take the issue to court. the burden of proof is on the Feds that they have the authority, not the States.

AND if a state is taking the court and wins great. If they lose. I that point I'd say the State STILL should ignore the FEDs and tell them they have to enforce themselves and they'll get NO help from the state AND that they have to get permission from state authorities for various actions.

the FEDs have no state lands the only place the fed REALLY have jurisdiction is on federal land. after that they are operating at the pleasure of the state and local gov'ts.

When the Supreme Court ruled in a case concerning State and Tribal rights that Andrew Jackson didn't agree with:
"In a popular quotation that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson) reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". This derives from Jackson's consideration on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict)."

In that case i think the SCOTUS was right, however unless the state decided to comply VOLUNTARILY then the ruling was effectively null and void.

the Staes CAN stand on there OWN opinion without getting permission from the feds.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No one's cared about the right to smoke pot for quite some time then the states started to edit their laws. there are other areas where the states are taking back there authority. slavery was 1st pushed back by state laws that made it illegal in northern states.

saying "no one cares" is a cop out. and a lazy man's way around a legitimate legal option.
the supreme court -as we've seen to much-- swings in the wind. a 100 years of rulings have been washed way for good and ill over the course of the past 200 years.
And I'm sure MANY people are concerned that the Feds have assumed far too much authority at this point.
time for the pendulum to swing back.




here's something to consider on that as well. IMO the states should not take to the supreme courts themselves. they should just implement there law or ignore the feds laws as they see fit until the FEDS decide they want to take the issue to court. the burden of proof is on the Feds that they have the authority, not the States.

AND if a state is taking the court and wins great. If they lose. I that point I'd say the State STILL should ignore the FEDs and tell them they have to enforce themselves and they'll get NO help from the state AND that they have to get permission from state authorities for various actions.

the FEDs have no state lands the only place the fed REALLY have jurisdiction is on federal land. after that they are operating at the pleasure of the state and local gov'ts.

When the Supreme Court ruled in a case concerning State and Tribal rights that Andrew Jackson didn't agree with:
"In a popular quotation that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson) reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". This derives from Jackson's consideration on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict)."

In that case i think the SCOTUS was right, however unless the state decided to comply VOLUNTARILY then the ruling was effectively null and void.

the Staes CAN stand on there OWN opinion without getting permission from the feds. Not now! THE BAMPUNK HAS AUTHORITY TO DRONRE STRIKE THEM. You didn't think he got that authority for nothing did you? And not nearly as far fetched a concept now as it was a mere ten years ago. Consider that ..... --Tyr

[fj1200]

No one's cared about the right to smoke pot for quite some time then the states started to edit their laws. there are other areas where the states are taking back there authority. slavery was 1st pushed back by state laws that made it illegal in northern states.

saying "no one cares" is a cop out. and a lazy man's way around a legitimate legal option.
the supreme court -as we've seen to much-- swings in the wind. a 100 years of rulings have been washed way for good and ill over the course of the past 200 years.
And I'm sure MANY people are concerned that the Feds have assumed far too much authority at this point.
time for the pendulum to swing back.

I agree, just pointing out the present reality. I hold out much more hope for the Tenth to be imposed then the false hope of the OH Constitution. Also, pot legalization, etc. still has zero effect on Federal legislation.


Not now! THE BAMPUNK HAS AUTHORITY TO DRONRE STRIKE THEM. You didn't think he got that authority for nothing did you? And not nearly as far fetched a concept now as it was a mere ten years ago. Consider that ..... --Tyr

:rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

Nobody has cared about the 10th for about 100 years... unfortunately.

Try 200+

Politicians don't tend to like restrictions placed on their authority.

[logroller]

The answer is this and it was my tagline until I recently replaced it with the quote about the Muslims. And it is exactly what Obama intends on zeroing out!!!! The Tenth Amendment was to guard against the office of the Presidency or the overall power of the federal government being used to establish a dictatorship by passing laws that usurped the Constitution and relegated the states to mere vassal subjects. Think of it like a governor on a motor if you will. -Tyr
I'm astutely aware of amendment X and the ramifications on PPACA-- Notice I stipulated that part of the law was overturned. The reason it was overturned was for the exact portion you quoted.


But if you're gonna quote the constitution (emphasis mine)...
art 1, section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If you want to talk about overtaxation by congress, by all means do, but don't frame it as a constitutional issue, because it's not--it's just bad policy IMO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm astutely aware of amendment X and the ramifications on PPACA-- Notice I stipulated that part of the law was overturned. The reason it was overturned was for the exact portion you quoted.


But if you're gonna quote the constitution (emphasis mine)...
art 1, section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If you want to talk about overtaxation by congress, by all means do, but don't frame it as a constitutional issue, because it's not--it's just bad policy IMO. As you know this nation was founded over taxation issues. Kings, dictators and other despots have used taxation to subjugate and enslave populations since time immemorial. It can easily be a Constitutional issue and it is now. Any vehicle that can and does threaten the security and/or survival of this nation is a Constitutional issue IMHO. So I'll have to disagree with your dismissal of the government ignoring the Tenth Amendment along with all of its other campaign to gain dictatorial powers. Some of us understand being taxed at over 50% is already halfway towards slavery. -Tyr

[revelarts]

I'm astutely aware of amendment X and the ramifications on PPACA-- Notice I stipulated that part of the law was overturned. The reason it was overturned was for the exact portion you quoted.


But if you're gonna quote the constitution (emphasis mine)...
art 1, section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If you want to talk about overtaxation by congress, by all means do, but don't frame it as a constitutional issue, because it's not--it's just bad policy IMO.

"general welfare"
"commerce" clause
"necessary and proper" clause

all the vaguest and most abused parts of the constitution.

the anti-federalist were right.

"This [new] government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable powers, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section eighth, article first, it is declared, that the Congress shall have power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper....
...So far, therefore, as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the States; but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual States must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance-there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the Constitution or laws of any State, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;-there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation. But this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defense, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare...

http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/fre..._papers_17.php (http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_17.php)

AntiFederalist Paper No. 17
FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY

[fj1200]

Try 200+

Politicians don't tend to like restrictions placed on their authority.

1913. ;)

[revelarts]

Anti Federalist papers number VI
Brutus
27 December 1787




...But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, &c. to provide for the common defence, &c. will be unconstitutional. Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of levying duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be appropriated, are specified, viz. to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare." I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by every one? No one will pretend they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves....

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus06.htm