All of the rhetoric and BS being shoveled by both sides covers up the critical defect of the legislation. Everyone is missing the point. Even Chief Judge Roberts was wearing blinders. Forget the fact, in this day, with the rising cost of health care, mainly due to the many law suits conjured up by the legal profession; which by the way, this Act is just another bail-out for the medical profession and the insurance companies, with subsidies going into the pockets of the lawyers, insurance is almost a necessity for especially young families and the older population.
Unfortunately, the media, Congress, Obama, and the Courts (Chief Justice Roberts), have completely ignored the “well-settled” law that natural rights have no place in the legislative process. In the number of articles I have posted in this blog there are several cases where this fact has been dealt with.
Since Chief Justice Roberts has erroneously called the “shared responsibility payment” a tax, I will refresh his memory, as he must have missed this in law school; “There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free government; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan, 157 U.S. 429 ( J. field, concurring), quoting counsel; Loan Associates v. Topeka, 20 Wallace 655; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487; United States v. Lopez, S. Ct., No. 93-1260.
Those of the media, legal profession and courts, make the following cites part of your education and put this ACA legislation where it belongs, in the garbage; One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943) This fundamental principle was re-affirmed in 1964 by the Court in Lucas v. State of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713. ” Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635; “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 490, 1966; “When such regulations do not conflict with any constitutional inhibition or natural right, their validity cannot be successfully controverted. The general government was not formed to interfere with or control them.” Butcher’s Union vs. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 754, Justice Field concurring. Freedom of choice is fundamental to preserving our Nation as a republic and the free exercise of agency. The government, led by the so-called “constitutionalist”, Obama and the “absent minded” Supreme Court, has forgotten that; “The best way of determining disputes and investigating truth is by ascending to elementary principles.” Alexander Hamilton. This principle has been repeated by several State Constitutions; “Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” Article I, Section 27, Utah State Constitution. I cannot believe that all of the legal gurus in Washington are completely oblivious to this principle; but I guess they are.
“An act of legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a legislature with such power; and therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. . . . To maintain that our Federal, or State, legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.” Justice Chase went on to conclude; “With very few exceptions, the advocates of such laws were stimulated by ambition, or personal resentment, and vindictive malice.” (Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386, 388, 389)
This ACA legislation, and others like it, only stirs the pot, adding fuel to the fire. “To all who have discerning eyes. It is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once the fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict — a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago…. The issue is the same that precipitated the great premortal conflict — will men be free to determine their own course of action, or must they be coerced?” Ezra Taft Benson, The Constitution, A Heavenly Banner. What say you, Obama, Roberts and Congress?
I think I can conclude this post with the appropriate conclusion offered by Justice Douglas; “This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. Army surveillance, like Army regimentation, is at war with the principles of the First Amendment. Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. . . . the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image, . . .” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 28, 29 (1972)