federal judge rules against Obamacare insurance mandate

President Obama’s plan to require individual Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty exceeds the powers granted both the president and Congress by the Constitution, a federal district court judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg

Federal District Judge Christopher C. Connor said the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will.

“The nation undoubtably faces a health-care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant.

“The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers,” Conner continued, “and Congress’ efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”

The lawsuit was brought by a married couple in York County who sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is overseeing the health-care plan, to overturn the law. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and her husband, Gregory Bachman, said they had dropped their own health coverage because it exceeded the cost of their mortgage payments.

They said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket.

However, Conner rejected an argument by the couple that the mandate is “disastrous to this nation’s future, such as the Bachmans’ prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results … are both unproductive and unpersuasive.”

While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.

Their complaint is one of 30 different lawsuits in various federal jurisdictions around the country challenging Obama’s health-care plan, which became law in 2010.

Separate lawsuits have already reached appeals courts in Richmond, Va., Atlanta and Cincinnati.

The Supreme Court is expected to eventually take up the issue.

Philly.com

Maine gets break in federal health care overhaul

Well we can add the entire State of Maine to the over 1,000 waivers that have been issued for Obamacare:

The federal government Tuesday granted Maine a waiver of a key provision in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, citing the likelihood that enforcement could destabilize the state’s market for individual health insurance.

The U.S. Health and Human Services department said in a letter it would waive the requirement that insurers spend 80 cents to 85 cents of every premium dollar on medical care and quality improvement. Instead, the letter said, the state could maintain its 65 percent standard for three years, with the caveat that HHS intends to review the figures after two years.

The decision makes Maine the first state to receive a waiver of the requirement. Similar requests are pending from Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire.

In seeking the waiver, Maine Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman feared that one of three major insurers offering individual plans in Maine would withdraw from the market altogether if the federal requirement remained in place. The insurer, MEGA Life and Health Insurance Co., has 37 percent of the state’s individual market.
CNBC

Breaking News:Gov. Haslam Gets Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Bill to Sign

Well it’s been a long time coming, but Tennessee finally passed it’s Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Act….nullifying the mandate to purchase Health Insurance. Now it’s up to the new Republican governor. Start contacting him now to pressure him to sign the bill. Phone: (615) 741-2001
E-Mail: bill.haslam@tn.gov

In the video below Beth Uselton demonstrates that she doesn’t know the Constitution and what the founders said about “nullification” of unconstitutonal Federal Bills passed into law.

Gov. Haslam Gets Health care Bill

Governor Bill Haslam now gets his say on a proposal that would allow Tennesseans to opt out of the federal health care law.

The Health Freedom Act passed the Tennessee state House Monday with a 70 to 27 vote, along party lines. The Senate passed the measure last month.

Sponsors say the legislation doesn’t argue for or against the federal law but just gives Tennesseans a choice. The federal health care law requires Americans either to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, beginning in 20-14.

The proposal now heads to the Governor’s desk.

News Channel 9

Technorati Tags: Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Act, Obamacare, Tennessee, health care

Romney: I Would Repeal ObamaCare

Boy….if you believe this……….I have some swamp land for sale!

Mitt Romney: I Would Repeal ObamaCare

If you’re wondering whether or not Mitt Romney would repeal ObamaCare if he could, he answered your question in a speech last night at the Carroll County, NH Lincoln Day Dinner. He also admitted that RomneyCare has some flaws.

“Some things worked, some things didn’t, and some things I’d change,” he said of the Massachusetts plan he authored, without offering specifics.

In his first public appearance in the first-in-the-nation primary state since last October, the all-but-declared presidential candidate said that nothing the president has done during his first two years in office was “more misguided and egregious … than Obamacare.”

“Obamacare is bad law constitutionally, bad policy, and it is bad for America’s families,” Romney said. “The federal government isn’t the answer for running health care any more than it’s the answer for running Amtrak or the Post Office.”

[...]

“One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover,” he added.

In his remarks, Romney three times called for “Obamacare” to be rolled back, saying at one point, “I would repeal Obamacare, if I were ever in a position to do so.”

I don’t know. I’m still waiting to see who declares before getting behind anyone. I still like Herman Cain.

The full text of his speech can be found here. He didn’t just talk about health care, and he slammed Obama on jobs and his failed foreign policy.

Memeorandum has a thread and linked.

House votes to overthrow some of Obama’s ‘czars’

Good for the House………keep up the good work attacking all things unconstitutional as the czars are. For you liberals reading this blog that also includes the ones George W. Bush had as well. We play no favorites here, except those that abide by the Constitution 100%. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states government officers with significant authority (called ‘principal officers’) must be nominated by the President and are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.

“Article II. Section 2. “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

House votes to overthrow ‘czars’

 

Scalise was behind the amendment, which ousted nine ‘czars’ from the White House. | AP Photo Close

The House voted Thursday to dethrone nine White House “czars.”

Republicans successfully added an amendment to the continuing resolution that would leave President Barack Obama’s senior advisers on policy issues including health care, energy and others out of a job.

The vote was 249-179.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) offered the amendment that blocks funding for various policy advisers to combat what he called “a very disturbing proliferation of czars” under Obama.

“These unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are or what they’re doing,” Scalise said Thursday. “But we do know that they’re wielding vast amounts of power.”

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy.

These so-called “czars” have been favorite targets of Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts, especially energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, who is leaving the administration.

“This is a person who’s continued to do things behind closed doors,” Scalise said of Browner.

GOP lawmakers assailed Browner’s office after a recent report showed that the White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling.

“It was found out that it was the climate czar that actually doctored the president’s own scientific study to try to say that scientists that the president appointed recommended a moratorium on drilling,” Scalise said. “It turned out the scientists didn’t say that at all.”

A federal investigation found no wrongdoing by Browner.

But Scalise had harsh words to go around for the other “czars,” too. “There’s actually a czar out there trying to still impose a cap-and-trade regime,” he said of the special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, who works at the State Department.

The amendment would defund the White House “green jobs czar” slot that has been vacant since Van Jones resigned in 2009 after reports surfaced that he signed a petition seeking an investigation into whether the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“The last green jobs czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the government, the American government, for September 11th attacks,” Scalise said.

“This amendment would say to AIG and General Motors, and Chrysler and Ally – the financial company – no one will now be supervising what you do, and even though you haven’t yet paid back the federal government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation,” he said.

Scalise got 13 Democrats to vote for his amendment and it wasn’t just the usual Blue Dogs: Dan Boren (Okla.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Henry Cuellar and Gene Green of Texas, Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Ed Pastor (Ariz.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell.

One Republican – Wisconsin’s Reid Ribble – voted no.

Politico

House to Vote for Blockage of Obamacare Funds Next Week

Well the good news just keeps on coming from this new bunch in the House, let’s hope it continues.

House seen blocking healthcare funds

The U.S. House of Representatives is likely to vote to block funding for President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

“I expect to see one way or other the product coming out of the House to speak to that and to preclude any funding to be used for that,” Cantor said at a news conference, referring to an effort to block implementation of the health-care law.

House Republicans aim to pass a spending measure next week that would immediately cut at least $32 billion from the government’s $3.7 trillion budget in an effort to trim budget deficits that could hit an estimated $1.5 trillion this year.

Details of the Republican spending-cut package will be made public on Thursday ahead of a wide-ranging debate on the House floor next week.

Cantor’s office said the language blocking funding for the healthcare law is expected to be offered as an amendment during the House debate next week. Republicans, trying to make good on a campaign pledge for a more open legislative process, plan to debate a number of amendments to the spending bill.

Cantor said he expects the spending bill to include healthcare language when it leaves the House for Senate consideration.

The measure is not likely to get past the Democratic-controlled Senate, which rejected a Republican bid to fully repeal the healthcare overhaul that Obama signed into law last year.

Republicans succeeded late last year in blocking some $1 billion for implementation of the healthcare law that Democrats wanted to include in the temporary government funding bill that is set to expire on March 4.

A move by Republicans to block healthcare law funds will help set the stage for partisan battle over spending that some lawmakers fear could lead to a government shutdown.

Reuters

Florida court strikes down Obama’s healthcare reform law

This is the second judge to strike down the provision that forces Americans to purchase government approved health insurance. We also learned today that the Senate is taking up the Repeal Obamacare bill maybe this week and they now have 47 sponsors of that repeal bill. Of course Obama will veto it, but still the House passed the repeal bill already and if the Senate follows suit that is a strong statement to Obama whether he vetos it or not, that tells Obama the American people don’t what this monstrosity.

Here’s what candidate Obama said in 2008 about ‘mandating’ everyone purchase health insurance as Hilliary Clinton was advocating at the time:

WASHINGTON: A US court in Florida has struck down President Barack Obama’s historic healthcare reforms, ruling that the requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional and is too central to making the law function. 

The White House termed it as judicial activism. (What else could the White House say?)

Giving a major blow to the historic Health Care Reform Act which was signed by Obama last year, the US District Judge Roger Vinson in his judgement ruled that the so-called individual mandate exceeds congressional power.

The whole law cannot stand as the law depends on the mandate to work. “I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit,” said Vinson, who on Monday became the second federal judge in two months to rule against the individual mandate.

1st collector for All of Obamacare Struck Down by Judge
Follow my videos on vodpod

The court cited opposition to a British mandate giving the then East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America, which was the beginning of the country’s freedom struggle.

The Congress does not have the power to compel an individual to purchase insurance, he said.

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” Vinson wrote.

“If Congress can penalise a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and we would have a Constitution in name only.

Surely this is not what the founding fathers could have intended,” he wrote.

The judgement, which was immediately opposed by the White House was cheered by the opposition Republican party, which after gaining majority in the House of Representatives repealed the bill from the House this year.

“Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching,” wrote the White House healthcare messaging guru Stephanie Cutter in a blog post.

“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts,” he said.

“This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion. Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law.

In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law, he said.

TimesofIndia.IndiaTimes.com

Where’s Our Waiver? (Obamacare)

What was all that Obama said about making everything equal? And what about the 14th amendment? As usual, says one thing, but the opposite is the truth.

Where’s Our Waiver?

ObamaCare: The granting of 500 more exemptions to unions, companies and even states begs the question — why is “affordable health care for all Americans” neither affordable nor for everybody?

The Obama administration has become famous for its crony capitalism, in which companies like General Electric were rewarded while energy companies, for example, were cast into the outer darkness. Now we have what might be called crony health care, with the favored escaping the full consequences of ObamaCare while the rest of us deal with the rising costs and reduced service.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once told us we’d have to pass ObamaCare to see what was in it. Now it turns out we have to wait for its implementation to see who is in it. The issuance of more than 500 additional waivers to its draconian mandates by Health and Human Services makes the case for repeal even stronger.

It is a system where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. We were told everyone had to be in it, everyone had to be forced to buy government-approved insurance for ObamaCare to work.

As Emily Litella used to say on “Saturday Night Live”: “Never mind.”

Unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), are particularly favored in this charade. Unions represent 6.9% of the private work force, yet 40% of the workers covered by these waivers are union members.

There are no fewer than 182 union benefit funds, one-fourth of all waivers, now exempted. And of the only 14.6 million union employees in the U.S., 860,000 are already exempted from ObamaCare’s mandated coverage requirements.

The SEIU — whose former head Andy Stern was once the leading visitor to the White House, ahead of Cabinet members and heads of state — had three of its locals exempted from ObamaCare mandates in the first batch of waivers, which reached 222 total: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago, with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund, with 520 enrollees.

In the latest round of waivers, the SEIU, which lobbied mightily to force everyone else into ObamaCare, added four more locals to the waiver list, which stands at 729. There are now seven SEIU locals that have waivers, covering a total of 45,000 workers.

Other unions and labor groups have also benefited.

One of the largest waivers, for 351,000 people, went to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union that covers teachers. The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, a California-based cooperative that provides such low-cost minimal coverage to farmworkers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 workers.

As columnist Michelle Malkin reports, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which trumpeted ObamaCare as “an achievement that will rank among the highest in our national experience,” has secured waivers for 238 of its affiliates. Hypocrisy as a union label.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which said that with ObamaCare “finally, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage will be available for millions of working Americans,” saw eight of its affiliates get waivers.

It seems ObamaCare is neither affordable nor comprehensive.

The exemption list even includes 4 states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee — that collectively cover 2.1 million workers. As we’ve noted, corporations such as McDonald’s are also on the waiver list, saying ObamaCare makes their plans unworkable and unaffordable.

ObamaCare is in effect repealing itself, waiver by waiver. If it’s so great, the Senate should vote on its repeal without fear.

Defunding should commence, as should House hearings exposing this fraudulent power grab. By the way, these new waivers come a week after Republicans announced plans to investigate the earlier waivers granted to groups for health care reform provisions.

Question: If the provisions these entities are exempt from are a hardship, then isn’t the entire piece of legislation?

How about granting America a waiver?

Investors.com

Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

 

Here’s another great article by my friend Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional lawyer from Tennessee……enjoy! ( I know this is a long article, but it’s full of great info)

By Publius Huldah Monday, January 24, 2011

During August 2010, the People of The State of Missouri approved Proposition C and nullified key parts of “obamacare”.  As a matter of constitutional principle, may the People of the States lawfully do this?  Or must they submit to every law made by Congress whether it is constitutional or not?  Are federal judges the final authority?

I will prove that the States have the Right and the Duty to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.  The only real question is whether Americans have the Will to reclaim our Constitutional Republic & the Rule of Law, or whether they will submit to the rulership of men who “don’t care” what the Constitution says, and who see obamacare as a way “to control the people”.

//

 

Congress’ Powers are Enumerated

1. The U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government, permits Congress to make laws only on those few objects which are listed in the Constitution. The objects on which Congress has authority to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few of the Amendments).

Since the Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the true meaning of the Constitution, ¹ let us see what those Papers say about the extent of Congress’ legislative powers.  In Federalist   No. 83 (7th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress …shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end), James Madison says:

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…[emphasis added]

Our Framers were emphatic that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only.  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says:

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…[emphasis mine] ³

Do you see?  If the Constitution doesn’t delegate a power to Congress by listing it in the Constitution, Congress doesn’t have that power.  It is reserved by the States or the People.

Congress Usurps Power when it makes Laws outside its Enumerated Powers – and such pretended Laws are VOID NOT VALID

.2. Our Framers understood that civil governments seek to expand power at the expense of the People. And when they do so, their acts are VOID and INVALID!  Thus, in Federalist No. 33 (next to last para), Hamilton says:

…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [caps are Hamilton’s; other emphasis mine]

In the last paragraph of No. 33,  Hamilton says a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution… [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 78 (10th para),  Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]

Nothing in Art. I, Sec. 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution, authorizes Congress to pass obamacare!  “Medical care” is not an enumerated power.  Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. ⁴

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment forbids Congress to pass obamacare: When a power is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, that power is reserved to the States or to the People.  Only the States or the People have power over medical care!
So!  Congress passed obamacare without any constitutional authority to do so, and in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Hence, as Hamilton shows us, obamacare is “void” and not “valid”. It is an act “of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

Hamilton, Madison & Thomas Jefferson show us that Nullification is the Answer.

3. Hamilton shows in Federalist No. 28 (7th para) that if the federal government invades the rights of the People, they can use the State government as the instrument of redress:

…in a confederacy   the people … may be said to be … the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will … stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.  The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…. [emphasis added]

So!  When the People of the State of Missouri approved Proposition C nullifying obamacare, they properly made use of their State government as “the instrument of redress” against the usurpations of Congress & the Executive Branch.

And since State officials and many Citizens have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2), it is their SWORN DUTY to nullify – to refuse to obey – unconstitutional and pretended federal “laws”, such as obamacare.

Nullification by States of unconstitutional federal laws is not new. Our beloved Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence) & James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) show us precisely what States are honor bound to do when Congress makes an unconstitutional law. During 1798, in response to Congress’ passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures passed Resolutions declaring those Acts unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress, and as in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  In these Resolutions, Kentucky and Virginia resolved not to abide by the federal acts.  Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison wrote The Virginia Resolution. ⁵

The Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions are masterpieces of constitutional analysis. Study them!  States may use them as models for their own Resolutions nullifying the myriad of unconstitutional “laws” which have spewed forth from Congress in recent decades.

The Framers did NOT say States should file Lawsuits and let Federal Judges decide!

4. Think: Why would the States, which formed a Federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive), exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)?  All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time!  Why would States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?

And further:  Can we not see for ourselves that obamacare is outside the scope of the Legislative Powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, and that it violates the Tenth Amendment?  Our Framers certainly did not advocate running to federal judges to let them decide such issues!  No, our Framers were men who had guts & backbone and understood the Constitution! So they nullified unconstitutional acts of Congress. ⁶

Will the American People pass the Test?

5. Will the States and the People surrender to the likes of former DNC Chairman Howard Dean who “doesn’t care” if the stuff passed by Congress is unconstitutional? To Democrat Congressman John Dingle who sees obamacare as a means “to control the people”?  Or will The People and the States man up and defend our Constitution?

We have instructions from the Author of the Declaration of Independence, the Father of the Constitution, and the Author of most of the Federalist Papers. They explain what our Constitution really means, and tell us what we need to do when the federal government usurps powers. Listen to them! They are the highest Authority on the true meaning of our Constitution.

And do not be swept away by rage and lust for revenge. Do not become the murderous, unthinking red-capped mob of the French Revolution.

Let us pray that our eyes be opened, that we listen to the words of wisdom from our Framers, that our spines be stiffened, and that we work for a peaceful political resolution of the dreadful problems facing us. PH

Endnotes:

¹ At a meeting attended by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825, the following resolution selecting texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

² See also Federalist No. 14 (8th para) “…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…”

Federalist No. 27 (last para) “…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps in original]

³ Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc., are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And the programs can’t work!  As more & more people seek to live at other peoples’ expense, the system eventually collapses. That collapse is upon us.

⁴ Jefferson calls it “nullification”; Madison calls it “interposition”. In “interposition”, the State “interposes” – steps in between – an usurping federal government and The People. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.)  The result is really the same.

⁵ Furthermore, the supreme Court is NOT the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Hamilton says federal judges may be impeached for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, next to last para).  Federalist No. 49, 3rd para, says that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance”.

The federal courts have refused to “enforce” the Constitution. Congress has failed to impeach & remove usurping federal judges – it has failed to be the “check” on the federal courts.  Therefore, WE must enforce the Constitution by means of nullification.  WE must be the final “check” on the courts. Study & Learn so that you are qualified to do this. PH

Canada Free Press

None dare call it dictatorship

Here’s an interesting and thought provoking article I ran across just now by Roger Hedgecock about Obama by-passing the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

As more facts come out about the background of the Tucson shooter, it has become clear that the massacre had nothing to do with political or media opponents of Barack Obama. But the left refuses to give up on the charge or give in to the facts.

The New York Times is still insisting, in the absence of any evidence, that there is a link between the Tucson shooter and the political and media opposition to Obama’s campaign to “utterly transform America.” In Sunday’s edition, the NYT printed a lengthy profile of the shooter, carefully omitting any of the recollections of the shooter’s friends that he was not political, and never watched TV or listened to political talk radio. Facts just don’t fit the meme.

The L.A. Times also did a lengthy profile of the Tucson shooter in its Sunday edition, reluctantly mentioning the shooter’s apolitical history in three lines of paragraph 31.

Why the need to continue to link Obama’s political opponents with the massacre in Tucson? Because silencing opposition is a prerequisite to preparing public opinion for an intensified Obama dictatorship.

Harsh words? Not if you consider the facts.

Faced with defeat of cap-and-trade legislation in the Congress, Obama has vowed to implement CO2 restrictions anyway by executive dictate through the Environmental Protection Agency. In the 2008 campaign, Obama acknowledged that with such restrictions “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Just what we need – higher electricity rates to help us get out of this recession. If this is not dictatorship, what else would you call implementing a law that was not passed?

Faced with congressional and court opposition to the Federal Communications Commission taking regulatory control of the Internet, Obama’s majority of the FCC board did it by making a rule that gave them that authority. The Internet is the last part of the American economy that could be called “free.” Not anymore. What, if not dictatorship, is ignoring opposition from Congress and the courts and announcing new regulation of the Internet?

Faced with federal court rejection of his Gulf oil-drilling moratorium, Obama announced the end of the moratorium and then had the Department of the Interior place all of Alaska, the West and East Coasts, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off limits to new drilling. Exactly one permit to drill in the remaining Gulf area not off limits has been issued since the moratorium was “lifted.” The price of gas in my neighborhood went from $2.799 last May (BP blowout) to $3.409 a gallon last week. Higher gas prices will certainly help the economic recovery, no?

On April 25, 2010, at a memorial for coal miners who had died in a mining collapse in West Virginia, Obama praised the miners’ courage and “the fruits of their labor that so often we take for granted.” He described those “fruits” as the “electricity that lights up our church or our home our school our office, the energy that powers our country, the energy that powers our world.”

Last week, Obama revoked a permit that had already been granted to Arch Coal to discharge rock waste from their existing Spruce No. 1 mine in southern West Virginia.

Ignoring Congress, ignoring court rulings, acting on his agenda without congressional authority, revoking permits already lawfully granted, is there a more “civil” word to describe this dictatorship?

Even worse, what laws Congress does pass are so vague and leave so much to bureaucratic “rule making,” that Obama has free rein to expand on his predecessors’ steady expansion of the power of the presidency to dictate to wide swaths of the economy.

The Wall Street Journal, for example, writes that the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” bill requires no fewer than 243 new rules by 11 separate federal agencies over a dozen years to implement the vague goals of the bill. This failure of Congress to be specific gives law making authority to an ever more powerful executive. Not that this trend is new. It is not. It notably began in the 1930s – the last time America experienced a recession transformed into a Depression by too much government.

If the 3,000-page Obamacare “reform” cannot be stretched to accomplish a goal, Secretary Sebelius of HHS will make up the authority to act. Recently, the secretary demanded that certain insurance company announced rate hikes in health-insurance premiums be rolled back. There is specifically no authority in Obamacare to do this. After ridiculing Sarah Palin’s denunciation of “end of life” care as “death panels” last year, Sebelius released draft regulations last month which contained financial disincentives to prolonging life.

These are but a few examples of Obama’s intensified presidential power grab.

Last week, the president announced his re-election campaign theme “Together We Thrive” at the memorial for victims of the Tucson massacre. The theme is lifted from an essay of that title by John Berry IV dated Feb. 11, 2008, and republished with approval at My.BarackObama.com. The blog post calls Obama’s campaign “a chance for a revolution” and describes America’s free-market economy as setting Americans “one against the other.” It’s standard Marxist tripe and standard Obama campaign.

In addition to kicking off the 2012 campaign with the memorial speech, Obama announced the next day he intended to raise $1 billion for the re-election effort, surpassing his own 2008 record of nearly $800 million.

Obama is nothing if not bold. He is disciplined, focused and always on agenda. Regardless of election setbacks, court rulings, laws passed by Congress (or not passed), Obama charges ahead to transform the country from a free market, constitutional republic to a one-party, government-directed economy.

To accomplish this transformation and make a majority of Americans accept it, the opposition must be silenced. Opposition political figures must be ridiculed and demonized. Opposition media figures must be demonized and, better yet, taken off the air in the name of “fairness.”

This president’s admirers tell of his admiration for Abraham Lincoln. By his actions, Obama’s role model is closer to Hugo Chavez.

We were warned a long time ago: “By their deeds you shall know them.”

Worldnet Daily