It bears repeating: this unconstitutional Obamacare “Act” H.R.3590 is a deprivation of liberty, and has no severability clause. Therefore any single violation of the U.S. Constitution renders the entire “Act” “null and void.”
where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that the courts will be alerted to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief. (Supreme Court, held in Bell v Hood 327 US 678, 66S.Ct. 773 90 L.Ed. 939)
In Part I, and II, violations of Articles and Amendments were clearly presented. In this third installment I will conclusively demonstrate that not only does Hobby Lobby have a viable action, but also any employee who gets fired or laid off on account of this bill has Constitutional standing to sue for damages. Therefore all 45,000 employees in the ‘Medical Device Industries’ should call their lawyers for a class action (if they’re not too timid to take on the administration) on account of the unconstitutional implementation of Obamacare.
Does the Constitution means what it says?
In Part II, law was presented that irrefutably proved the “Act” violated the 1st Amendment. It grants “preferential treatment” to select religious sects. Most importantly, in Part I, it is inarguable that any “Taxes” that exist throughout from its inception was/is unconstitutional because the “Act” “originated” in the Senate.
Any law must apply with equal force, as proven. Obamacare (“H.R. 3590”) abridges the rights of every person not affiliated with an Islamic or Amish sect. Exemptions from any penalty, whether granted to flesh-and-blood persons or companies, lie at the heart of the matter. Clearly granting privileges to favored religious sects directly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. One could also argue it violates Title VII of the civil rights law.
As written, in 2013 each mandate takes effect along with unconstitutional punishments, and taxes become law. The Obamacare “Act” levies taxes on incomes without apportionment in violation of Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4:
No Capitation or other direct. Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
It is inarguable that Obamacare taxes individuals and entities, discriminately, and without apportionment among the various states. For that reason alone, Obamacare, according to the Constitution, must become “null and void” by positive law.
Consider also Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1:
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in several States.
This raises another issue subject to litigation. Any “Act” to levy a direct Tax upon persons, as a penalty, violates 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.
Clearly, that makes any “individual mandate” an unapportioned capitation tax, hence another violation of the Constitution.
Constitutional challenges to Obamacare
It is undeniable numerous constitutional challenges exist, and were proven thus far for the Courts to render this ‘Act” unconstitutional. The only obstacles the American people are facing are the hoodlums in black. They either refuse, or else are too timid, to adhere to their oath of office. Not to mention progressive reprobates in black robes that have sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver. Or the man-child that would establish a United States Monarchy while occupying the White House in the last stole election. (But that’s for another article).
Blatant Discrimination, 14th Amendment Violation
The discriminatory structure of the penalty (Tax punishment) establishes a violation of “positive law” that mandates adjudication. This is especially true in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. As written, the Act imposes regulations on larger corporations with more than 10 operating facilities, and exempts businesses with less than 10 operating facilities. This clearly penalizes growth by selective regulations, under the threat of punishment. That’s discriminatory and preferential treatment.
One need only look at the restaurant industry. The Obamacare “Act” discriminates against chain restaurants and exempts smaller restaurants. By law, business establishments must be all subject or all exempt, if “equal justice and treatment” means a thing.
Obamacare deliberately exempts all federal branches of government from the mandates, but forces the citizens to comply. Congress elevated themselves above the people with “special” and better services than those the American people must accept as defined in Healthcare Plans. This violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment and also violates Title VII.
Obamacare grants special benefits to selective groups, like Unions and the stooge-like community organizations (Communist groups such as Obama’s SEIU). Again these exceptions violate “equal protection.”
Obamacare penalizes citizens with existing healthcare policies (“Cadillac Plans”) that offer better coverage than the government limit. It forces those persons to pay an additional tax. So much for Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1,and Amendment 14.
This brings me to the State Discrimination.
Unconstitutional State Discrimination
Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1, states:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in several States.
Obamacare blatantly discriminates against several States. New Jersey and a majority of other sister states must fund Obamacare unequally. But the leaders of the Senate selectively granted special financial packages and exemptions to various States through political bribery to secure passage of Obamacare, and passed on their costs to those States without any “special exemptions” and or “special financial packages.” This also is “unequal treatment.” Again, a violation of Article 4, section 2, Paragraph 1.
Congress unconditionally granted special exemptions through waivers. The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 1000 waivers related to employment-based coverage to:
- Self-insured employer plans [Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi secured waivers for Restaurateurs in her District],
- Special friends (donors) of the Obama administration,
- Multiple “mini-med” products sold to employers or individuals,
- Political bribery waivers to state government allowing restricted annual limits on behalf of the issuers of state-mandated policies if the state law required policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010, and
- Last but not least, several foundations who are Obama’s progressive cheerleaders. The Robert Wood Johnson foundation, whose board of trustees include Obama’s health-care czar Nancy Ann DeParic, is a prize (and highly convenient) example.
Illegal “Takings” void “Due Process”
Obamacare illegally grants this renegade administration the power, under the color of law, to confiscate property of persons that refuse to comply with their mandates. More serious, any person or company that refuses is without recourse in a court of law. The “Act” prohibits judicial review, in violation of Amendment 5. One could argue this is violation of Amendment 13; that would make it involuntary servitude. An argument exists based upon an illegal “taking” since no trial or appeal process exists. In short, this is nothing more than a governmental extortion scheme. Comply or suffer the consequences.
It would also be noteworthy to address the provision in the “Act” that lets the federal government illegally confiscate 3.8-percent of the sale of your home (making the government your partner) and other capital investments outside normal capital gains taxes. Clearly we are looking at selective taxation which is also unconstitutional.
Admittedly, Congress made clear, the taxes and penalties set forth in Obamacare exist to fund insurance for those persons who don’t have it. However noble the intent, no Article or Amendment in the United States Constitution grants Congress such authority to dictate what any State, individual or enterprise may buy or choose not to buy. Secondly, no provision in the Constitution grants Congress the authority to create “Specific Welfare”!
Inarguably, that provision violates Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1, the “commerce clause”; and distorts the meaning of “General welfare.” It does this by creating “specific welfare” and intruding into that realm by ordering a person and/or business enterprise to purchase/pay for a product or service for a “specific group” of people. That violates Supreme Court precedent; See, US v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) that prohibits the activities being promulgated by the “Act”. Obamacare levies taxes specifically to supply a product by taxing others. Even under the guise of “General Welfare” it would still be arguable that the “Act” constitutes “specific” welfare as held in US v. Butler.
Thus far, numerous sovereign States have refused to implement or create “exchanges,” to place taxes on inferior and/or superior health care plans, or implement the other draconian Obamacare provisions..Nor can any law make Hobby Lobby, Inc. fund what violates their “religious conscience exemption,” specifically a mandate to pay for drugs or devices to deter the right to life. It would behoove the idiots in Congress to review the Constitution. Remember: every one of the reprobates that voted to pass Obamacare violated their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. (So did the reprobate who signed it into law, but he already stood in violation by occupying an office he is not qualified to occupy, as my lawyer said.) No one can excuse the fact that they signed this “act” to see what was in it! That in-of-itself is tantamount to a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
“We the People” remind the Court: in Marbury v. Madison the Court held:
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United states confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to essential to all written constitutions, that the law repugnant to the constitution is void: and that courts as other departments are bound by that instrument.
The wider, and darker, goals
The Federal Courts have held “equal protection” rights may be violated by gross abuse of power, invidious discrimination or fundamentally unfair procedures. Make no mistake, Obama is an Islamic/Marxist. The goal of his administration’s policies is to remove Christianity and Judaism in the United States and transform the United States into a socialist/Marxists regime. Again, it behooves everyone to read the 45 goals of the Communist party for the takeover of the United States as recorded in Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963. If you can comprehend what you read there, you will see they have accomplished their goals. They, meaning Media, Academia, disarmament Unions, and the courts. Homosexuality, promiscuity as normal, elimination of pray etc. read them all, each one will make you sick to your stomach. It’s time to wake up and come out of the coma!
A challenge repeated
A reminder, not a single so-called legal scholar has accepted my challenge to an open debate on the constitutionality of H.R. 3590, the so-called health-care “Act” that has nothing what so-ever to do with health-care and all to do about control.
I again put forth the challenge, It would be wise for all and one to review Purpura v Sibelius Supreme Court case No. 11-7275 that lists 19-Constitutional challenges that include 4-statutory laws that prove the “Act” is unconstitutional.
At each level of the federal system of justice, cowardly and corrupt hoodlums in black robes refused to address a single violation of the Constitution. Also noteworthy, the Department of Justice forfeited no less than three times, which was ignored by a corrupt judge who acted in connivance with the Justice Department attempt to dismiss the case. The Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, also acted in concert with the DOJ and the District Court issued ruling contrary to existing statutory law, ignored evidence and outright lied in their decisions. In violation of statutory law the decision handed down were also flawed and issued by judges who by law, were required to recuse themselves due to a financial interest in the out-come, since they were appointed by Mr. Obama.
Shamefully, the Supreme Court without explanation refused to hear the case failing to address a single violation incorporated in “H.R.3590” or the illegal acts of jurist in the lower courts, protecting the reprobates. Their refusal to address the most comprehensive legal action against Obamacare thereby allowing to an unconstitutional ‘Act” to become law.
This three Part Series is only the beginning! This outlaw administration has opened Pandora’s box.
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Human Interest5 days ago
AI – the next culture war theater?
Constitution4 days ago
Google gets the Twitter treatment
Let's Talk3 days ago
The press v. the President
Executive2 days ago
Ukraine labs – threat reduction or…
Executive24 hours ago
Zelensky and Trump – history
Guest Columns2 days ago
Legislative3 days ago
Florida lawmakers propose bill that would make the Sunshine State the 26th state to adopt Constitutional Carry
News3 days ago
German chancellor says he won’t send fighter jets to Ukraine