Gave Him an Inch and He Took a Mile
The people are no longer protected by a division of powers that was built into our system of government by the Constitution. The enemy of our way of life has taken over not only the executive department, but also the legislative and the judicial branches. Obama (this is a strange name that we have put beside the names like Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Adams) has failed to defend the Constitution, and has abused the honorable office of the President of the United States. Legislation, that comes before him, gives him only two options. To either sign the legislation into law and execute its provisions, or if he determines that the legislation is unconstitutional, veto the package. He has NO delegated authority to legislate or lobby. This socialist (to be politically correct, communist), has needlessly been spending federal revenues (which have to be borrowed) on touring the country advertising his agenda.
Obama’s whole presidency and that of the Democratic Socialist Party, is centered on creating a voting block dependent upon government hand-outs, paid for by others and government borrowing. Both political parties have been educating the nation in the “will of the people” philosophy, which is the foundation of a democracy. And to repeat, this nation is not a democracy, it is a republic. One of the tenants of a republic is the belief in the natural rights of the people and that governments are established to “secure those rights”.
This is where Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts failed, along with the concurring justices, to uphold their office. The idea behind the ACA, or Obamacare, is honorable. The problem centers around the mandate penalty, or “tax”, as Chief Justice Roberts, in error, called it. This mandate violates our “right of conscience”, or agency which allow us to choose whether or not to buy health insurance. If one wants to take advantage of the opportunity, fine, but Mr. Obama and his followers (or is Obama one of the followers?), have no authority under the constitution of compel activity in the program. This is a fundamental that has been forgotten, that of delegation of authority. There authority comes from the people, and the people can only delegate what they possess, nothing more. This “will of the people” concept is a total lie! “While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. . . . (cites omitted) The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, . . .” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390), or ‘general welfare’. The Roberts’ court evidently over looked this declaration when they approved and compelled a “free” people to contract with insurance companies.
Using terms like “democracy” and “will of the people” have distracted our legislatures, who are mostly attorneys, and those who are not take the word of these attorneys as gospel, and they are directed by them on faith. So these elected officials no longer have the capacity to think or reason.
To remind them; “A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenues and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.” (Harry Atwood, Back To The Republic) The back door to this is that one of the elements which would void any contract is that one of the parties is compelled to be a party to the agreement. The Supreme Court, in approving Obamacare, forget the cornerstone of legislation, which Justice O’Conner outlined in New York v. United States; ““Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution. Thus, for example, under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate publishers engaged in interstate commerce, but Congress is constrained in the exercise of that power by the First Amendment.” (505 U.S. 144, 156 1992) The same applies to the ACA, they can legislate in any area the chose, however, that legislation, the mandate of the ACA, is “constrained” by our natural right to chose, and cannot be compelled by a dictatorial President and his supporters.
It has come down to our last line of defense against a run away government, and that is the people to stand up and “draw our line in the sand”. Better yet carve it in stone!
One other point that I have mentioned several time, which hasn’t sunk in with these people, is the extent of their legislative jurisdiction. Remember, that the federal government can only function in those areas outlined in the Constitution, if the Constitution does not say it, it can’t be done, this is known as “constitutional silence”. Chief Justice Roberts, in his commentary on the ACA, realizes this; “If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.” (NFIB v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, 2012)
Alexander Hamilton addressed this in letter No. 84 of the Federalist Papers; “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” Conversely, if I may add to Mr. Hamilton’s remarks; “why declare that things can be done, when there is no power granted to do?” Like healthcare, social security has been spun to justify the imposition of more taxes, and the theft of property from the people to support a now bankrupt federal program.
President Franklin Pierce came to the same conclusion when he vetoed a bill, sending it back to the senate saying; ” I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” (May 3, 1854)
Of course, our government, has found ways to circumscribe this silence by using the “general welfare” clause, a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution; “. . . promote the general welfare, . . .” This is an error, and a spin made by the legal profession to justify all of their social programs. Justice Harlan spoke to the abuse of this phrase from the preamble when quoting Justice Story; “Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. 1 Story, Const. 462” (Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 1905)
The use of the phrase “general welfare” is also used in Article I, section 8. Here again, it is misused, especially during the administration of FDR, who threatened the Supreme Court, causing the justices to capitulate to the President’s demands. In opening that door, President Roosevelt, in effect, opened pandora’s box. Every president since, has taken advantage and walked right through with the approval of the courts. These people seem to be in a world of their own. Doing a search of the internet on the subject of the ‘general welfare’ clause in the Constitution; there have been countless articles written. In going over most of them, I found not one, and I repeat, not one that supported this abuse. One or two tried to be neutral, but in the end came to the same conclusion in support of James Madison’s position.
It is a contest between the views of Madison and those of Hamilton. Madison’s views pretty much controlled the use of the spending and general welfare clauses of the Constitution, until the reign of FDR, when Hamilton’s theory took hold. It is inconsistent to agree with Hamilton view that spending by congress was complete and expansive, and it does not find a home with the principle that this government is one of limited and defined powers.
The other fundamental that stands in the way is found in the “delegation of authority” doctrine. The maxim is; if I can do it, then that authority can be delegated to the government. Secondly, and just as important, Justice Thomas reminds us in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, quoting decisions back to 1793, that; “No one disputes the proposition that ‘the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.'” (514 U.S. 549, 2)
I think both Hamilton and Madison would agree that looking after the “general welfare” of the people is an honorable endeavor, and when able, governments have that duty. On the other hand, the Constitution does not list in Article I, section 8 any authority to create agencies or pass any legislation in that area. In short, if funds are available they can be allocated in that area, with the understanding that the program will benefit the “general” population, not local, and taxes cannot be imposed to fund the “general welfare”.
Returning to Obamacare (ACA), health insurance is a good thing, but forcing this program upon the people is out of character with our Constitution. Right or wrong, choosing to join, or not to join a health care program, is a natural right of conscience that cannot be infringed. This has been made clear time and time again. “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 v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 754) Most notably by then Chief Justice Warren in the well known Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436); “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (p. 491)
I continue to cite the Miranda decision and also Justice Jackson’s decision in W. Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624); “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (p. 638) Part of the liberty that the government is formed to secure, is the right of conscience or agency. Obamacare does away with that part of liberty. The mandate is evil, and not only passing it into law, but also sustaining that evil falls upon the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice Roberts. I don’t know how he can sleep at nights.
The commercials that the government is running are very nice; they should also mention that if you fail to comply with the law, you will be penalized by an additional tax, which is in addition to all the other taxes imposed by this Act which has the color of law. The other evil in this Act results in the taking from on citizen for the benefit of another. This brings to mind the comments of Justice Chase; “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.” (Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386)
We look at other fundamental principles that are a bar to the ACA functioning in the States against its citizens, and that is in the “police powers”, powers which under the 10th Amendment were never surrendered to the federal government and remain with the States. With the exception of Federal lands and Federal buildings where the States have ceded jurisdiction over to the Federal Government, Hussain Obama and his followers have NO police powers within the borders of the individual States to enforce or police its legislation. The limits of Congress’ legislative jurisdiction is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, clause 17; “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; . . .”
The enactment of the ACA as a power of Congress’ use of the commerce clause, was rightly rejected by the Supreme Court (at least they did something right), however, the “shared responsibility payment” under the guidelines of the Ninth Amendment, was blatantly construed to be constitutional, which, when examined in the light of day is most assuredly unconstitutional. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” These people who think they are doing the right thing, are “walking in darkness at noon-day”.
L. Sherwood Glazier