Obamacare: one petition could end it
What prompted me to write this article is the continual moaning over Obamacare. Listening to talk radio, the topic of the day was the “Death Panels”. Yes, there is a death panel that not even Congress has the authority override in the current legislation. It’s time for a wake-up call!
What if I told you, Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional, not once, but twice! Yes twice; and not a single legal scholar, attorney or judge has had the courage to publicly or legally reveal this to the nation.
It is my intention to be deliberately insulting to get everyone’s attention and at the same time embarrass the reprobates in Congress that failed in their fiduciary duty to read the “Bill” and especially publicize the charade by the 26 Attorneys General who supposedly represented the citizens of their respective states.
Obamacare could fall to one legal action
Obamacare by law, could have been legally abolished following the ruling in Florida by the Hon. Roger Vinson. In fact, it could still, even now, be eliminated in one simple legal action. Please read on and you will understand my disdain for our despicable legislators.
One would think that 26 Attorneys General who had instituted a multi-State legal action against Obamacare, would be well versed in constitutional law. If one did think that, he’d be mighty wrong. Instead of being powerful legal eagles, these 26 AG’s proved to be nothing more than useless “yellow” canaries. Not a single one of those morons realized or possibly even cared, that if followed up, the above mentioned ruling by Judge Vinson in the case of Florida ex rel. Bondi v. U.S. Department of Health &Human Services, would have effectively ended Obamacare.
The fact is, both sides of the Health-care controversy requested the court address the legislative history of the bill. Justice Vinson concluded and set forth in his decision that the “bill” originated in the U.S. Senate. His Honor also stated that the bill contained taxes, thereby sealing the fate of Obamacare. By law, his ruling, rendered the bill unconstitutional.
But did any of the 26 AG’s bother to present this evidence to the Supreme Court? Understanding the cost and time and effort that had been expended on this law suit, it is astonishing that they either overlooked or ignored that ruling. Incompetence and buffoonery really cannot address this. The only thing that does make sense, is the lawsuit they collaborated in, was just a charade to display in front of their constituents. What else could describe why they would ignore truly potent ammunition when it was handed to them on a silver platter?
On appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, that disparate group of black robed extorted pretenders and leftist ideologues, also ruled that Obamacare contained new taxes. For a second time, the door to the pathway of ending this legislation was left open. But not one AG had the courage to proceed through the threshold.
The fact is, all three levels of the Federal Court system either failed or refused to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard. That application is termed “law of the case”. Justice Vinson, established the ‘law of the case” when he found that Obama-care, originated in the Senate.
Tax bills may not come out of the Senate!
Where have I been going with this? Once again our Founding Fathers, in their brilliance wrote into the Constitution a means to halt tyranny. The U.S. Constitution is specific concerning which body of Congress has the authority to institute legislation that creates a new tax. It is unambiguous and explicit. All revenue creating bills must originate in the House of Representatives.
Here is how it’s written (Article 1, section 7, paragraph 1):
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Shall originate. No provision exists that grants the Senate authority to originate a revenue raising bill.
Even more frustrating, the Court was informed that Congress was guilty of fraud in the passage of this legislation. With “fraudulent intent’ the House took an unrelated House Bill –HR 3590, titled the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” extracted the entire contents and replaced it with the Senate version of ‘Healthy Future Act’ (S 1796) a precursor of the Act giving it the appearance of legality. Thereafter, behind closed doors they renamed the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” and then re-titled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” surreptitiously to acquire a “House Designation Number”
Two additional facts on why this was done quickly and illegally. First, the Democrats were fearful of a Republican filibuster following the election of Scott Brown (R), who replaced Senator Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy. Second, both the Senate and House were fully aware they were circumventing the law. Approximately a month prior, the Senate drafted S 510 which contained revenue raising provisions and that bill had to be rewritten by the House of Representatives.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, not one of the 26 Attorneys General followed up or even took the time to respond to a letter prepared by www.TPATH.org (see copy of letter below) informing them of the tax raising violation,
Also, the Hoodlums in Black Robes in the NJ District, Third Circuit and Supreme Court of the United States refused to address the evidence that proved Obamacare was unconstitutional. So you may ask, why the heck will no one bring a legal action. This issue is still ripe for review. As they say, blackmail and corruption are a way of life in Washington D.C.
Echelon, PRISM and the NSA, just might be controlling factors.
America! A midterm election in 2014 is around the corner. Is it not time to throw every incumbent out of office and elect men and women of moral character?
I leave you with words that Nikita S, Khrushchev might have spoken:
You Americans are so stupid that we can spit in your eye and you think it is falling dew.
There are no less than 19 violations of the U.S. Constitution contained in Obamacare “HR 3590” and my earlier invitation to every law professor, judge, and attorney still stands – Do you have the courage to publicly debate me? I think not, since I have put forth this challenge since 2010.
Reprinted from Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub
Please call your Representative and ask if what you read here is true, and just what the heck they are going to about it!
Copy of letter TPATH sent to the 26 AG’s just days after the Supreme Court ruling.
July 1, 2012
Dear State Attorney General,
The Supreme Court ruling this past week which declared the bill known as Obamacare to be constitutional was as shocking as it was egregious. If the Republicans do not get control of the Senate and or if Obama is re-elected, this country may never recover from the scope and breadth of this bill.
It will do no good to spend any time wondering why Justice Roberts ruled as he did. Nor will it serve any endeavor to use valuable time name calling and venting. What we need is a plan, beyond the expectations of November, and we need to implement it quickly.
I just finished watching three state AG’s on Huckabee’s Fox program (you know who you are) as they discussed possible plans for continuing the fight. It had been my hope that Article I of the Constitution would come up and be discussed. Alas, it did not. As a result TPATH has decided to contact each of the 26 State AG’s in an effort to get some attention on the breach of Article I, Section 7.
As each of you are aware, this ruling can be challenged if it is done so with in 30 days of the ruling. That will give you until Friday, July 27th to join together with a formal appeal and official notification. From what I understand, an appeal can be made provided there is new evidence which was not considered or litigated during the process.
The basis for new evidence was produced by none other than Chief Justice Roberts, himself. His opinion and ruling that the healthcare bill was a tax bill, brought new evidence to the law suit. In fact, its now the law. SCOTUS says its a tax bill. So, its a tax bill.
It is the opinion of TPATH as well as all of our researchers and contributors, immediately upon ruling Obamacare a tax bill, Roberts could have and probably should have, ruled it unconstitutional under the constraints of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Just a small review of the history of the Senate Healthcare bill which is the one being challenged. This bill was written and produced by the Senate and by use of reconciliation passed it on to Obama’s desk. So not only was this bill not produced by the the House of Representatives as required by Article I, Section 7, but it was never voted on by the full House.
The bottom line is, the Healthcare Bill was deemed unconstitutional, in its entirety, the instant that Roberts declared it a tax bill. Taxes cannot be raised by the US Senate.
TPATH hopes you will take this into consideration. This fight to save America from this over reach of the Federal Government, is not over.
- 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
Media5 days ago
Kennedy scores Musk interview
Family4 days ago
Women – how important?
Constitution4 days ago
Gorsuch Condemns COVID Policies for Violating Civil Liberties: Where Are the Rest?
Executive3 days ago
FBI reneges on doc handover
Executive5 days ago
California losing insurers
Human Interest4 days ago
Trump donor loses family in crash
Constitution3 days ago
Kennedy, Musk talk politics
Constitution3 days ago
Laura Loomer detained after confronting James Comey in Illinois
SJ Cottrell liked this on Facebook.
Chronic Colonic liked this on Facebook.
Digg Patriots liked this on Facebook.
Alan Hume liked this on Facebook.
David Sullivan liked this on Facebook.
This idea that appellate courts are bound by the law of the case to adhere to lower level determinations of legal issues is puzzling. Mr. Purpura does not seem to understand the very purpose of the appellate courts. Law of the case doesn’t apply to Circuit courts and certainly not to the Supreme Court. It applies to the District courts on remand as to legal issues. And of course the appellate courts are extremely limited in their jurisdiction to decide facts. That’s the purview of the trial level courts.
Mr. Purpura also does not seem to understand the procedural posture of this case up to the Supreme Court. There was no “evidence” to present to the Supreme Court on purely legal issues. “Clear and convincing” is an evidentiary standard that applies to factual determinations at the trial level. It’s simply not relevant to facts that largely weren’t in dispute, nor was any dispute necessary to appropriately frame the relevant issues. The statute is what it is.
I encourage Mr. Purpura to actually read the various courts’ opinions, as I’m certain from analysis that doesn’t barely addresses the legal issues presented and gets the Supreme Court’s decision dead wrong that he hasn’t.
Mr. Purpura is entitled to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, but for him as a licensed attorney to accuse the Circuit and Supreme Courts of being corrupt hoodlums and essentially engaging in criminal conduct is appalling. His personal disagreement and apparent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s decision does not an unconstitutional statute make, nor do they justify a lazy approach to legal analysis as he exults in making political and personal attacks.
The bases he offers for these sharp claims don’t remotely support them. I have to say that I often find that claims of unconstitutionality made on this site are almost uniformly unsupported, or to the extent anyone bothers to make actual legal arguments (typically Mr. Purpura), the analysis is woefully inadequate. I showed him to be talking pure nonsense with regard to a claim (I can’t remember exactly what it was without going through 1 years worth of posts and comments) he argued unsuccessfully in the NJ Administrative court. Ms. Salanitri seems to be the only blogger here who’s corrected misstatements in her articles, and I appreciate her integrity in doing so. Otherwise I can’t say I understand Mr. Hurlbut’s claims that what goes on here is “journalism.” It’s so biased and self-serving that it truly abdicates a journalist’s responsibility to respect truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability.
Sour grapes and personal attacks just aren’t how one makes a compelling case for … anything.
I’ve posted comments of this nature before that haven’t been approved. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if this one is. Thanks.
Theresa Brooks liked this on Facebook.
[…] Obamacare: one petition could end it […]
[…] Obamacare: one petition could end it […]
Michael Alan Kline Sr liked this on Facebook.