A Tax, Not A Tax

As the Sunday morning news talk shows got warmed up, the topic at hand this week was the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare.

With that ruling, the justices, 7 to 2, called the mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but by a 5-4 ruling stuck the mandate under the taxation power and ruled it constitutional. Systematically changing the law. 

The wording in HR3590, the bill that became law, was re-written from HR3200 to remove the word "tax penalty" and restated it as penalty, removing the word tax, so as not to appear to be raising taxes on anyone making under their $250K threshold.

Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding factor in Obamacare mandate and ruled it constitutional under the powers of congress to lay and collect taxes and the penalty IS a tax.

Now the Republicans are having at Obama for raising taxes on anyone making less then $250K, as he promised he would not do, during the run up to the 2008 election.

The left and Democrats are hailing Roberts as a hero that saved a law that takes control over a private sector of our economy (socialism). This is the same Justice Roberts who ruled in the Citizen United case that Unions and Corporation have a right to freedom of speech and with that ruling it infuriated the liberals-progressives. But now he's their hero and they are loving it. Go figure.

On Fox News today, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, continued to regurgitate the Obama Whitehouse that the "penalty" was not a tax, even though the supreme court ruled it as such.

Chris Wallace quickly dissented.

Mr Lew, Tax= A sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. and to demand a tax from a person, business, etc. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.

The Whitehouse now thinks it can change the meaning of "Tax" But, that doesn't surprise this blogger!

It... Is... Over

Today, the United States Supreme Court abruptly and systematically dismantled this nation when it ruled Obamacare Constitutional.

Shocking!

Discusted!

Bewildered!

Lost!

Dismade!

FURIOUS!

I sit here in furor at this ruling and what it means for the nation that I, you, ALL was born in, and to figure out what comes next.

Today, our Federalist form of government came to an abrupt end and the republic has had it's heart ripped from our lives.

I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would witness the United States come to an end as we knew her.

My ancestor helped found this nation, and that I am proud of.

I am really at a lost for words, that "We the People" have let them down. That we lost what they fought so bravely for.

So, with this all said and done, Congress can repeal Obamacare.

However, one thing it can not do in a repeal....

It CANNOT change what the court did.

And what it did was, it told us that our elected officials have the power to tell you, through legislation, that you HAVE to participate in commerce, whether you choose to or not.

It can force you to buy a two dollar pencil, or a two million dollar yacht, if they deem it necessary!!!

DID YOU CATCH THAT?

I'LL REPEAT IT!

It can force you to buy a two dollar pencil, or a two million dollar yacht, if THEY deem it necessary!!!

You have lost your own god given right to make your own decision in life on what to spend your money on.... Think about that for awhile. As a Conservative. As a Moderate, As an Independent, As a Liberal. Your country, its guarantee personal liberties, your human right to know whats is best for you has been snuffed out, forever!

There is only two ways out of this.

-A constitutional amendment, or

-Rebellion to restore the federalist form of government and our republic.

Neither one easy.

But one can rid our nation of the ideologue that brought this day upon us.

I choose the latter!

Obamacare Effects- Christian Hospital to Begin Layoffs

What happens when you mess around with our healthcare system and take control of the health insurance industry, as Obamacare has done? Hospitals begins reducing their staff and their ability to provide the healthcare of it's community it serves in. And in Obama's home state, no less.

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove, IL, a Christian founded and built premier hospital in Illinois that opened 35 years ago is handing out pick slips at the end of this week because of Obamacare.

A little known story that was discovered in the 3rd page of the Chicago Tribune.

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove said it will cut employees because of Medicaid cuts and other growing financial pressures associated with health care reform, a company statement said Friday. 
"As part of the workforce redesign, associate positions in some units/departments are being eliminated while positions in other departments are being added," said company spokesman Jim Silvestri.  The hospital plans to provide the impacted employees with "placement assistance across the hospital and Advocate Health Care."

The hospital also implemented a selective hiring freeze this year and has begun focusing on reducing the length of patients' hospital stays and avoidable readmissions.

"While these efforts translate to better care for our patients, they also mean a lower daily census," the statement said.

Here we go folks! Until this thing is repealed or found to be un-constitutional, these kinds of things are going to continue.

Huffington Post Liberals are Freaking Out Today

Over on the Humpingthepost.... Sorry... Huffington Post, the website is freaking out after todays oral arguments of Obamacare.

Here is a websnap of the Huffington Post's front page.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin is making his predictions based on the Courts reaction, particularly the Conservative judges, to Paul Clement answer to a question from the court, by saying "If you believe not acting is commence, there is no limited principle to that."

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said "This law looks like it's going to be struck down," he said. "I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong....Based on what we saw today, I think this law is in grave, grave trouble,"

Obamacare Goes to the United States Supreme Court

Today began the oral arguments by attorney generals of 26 states vs the HHS and Obama Administration over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.


What is at stake here, is just not whether we as a people will have to purchase healthcare insurance and help pay for coverage to those less fortunate in our society. NO! What is at stake here is our individual liberties, to live free to make our own decision, through our own will & desire.

Some fine examples are given here by Karen Harned in an opinion piece done on the Fox News site.

Those 5 things, she lists, nails it to what you can expect in your lives, and those of your future generation, will endure if USSC rules in favor of Obamacare, that it is constitutional.

1) The American ideal of freedom

It will strip Americans of the freedoms they hold dear and chisel away their ability to exercise individual liberties and freedoms.

If the law stands, the checks on the government’s power will be all but gone. It will have the power to tell every individual, every religious institution, every family and every business what it must do in order to be an American. Under the false pretense of serving “the public good,”

2) The freedom to purchase whatever product you want with your own money

The government has never been able to force Americans to buy something or pay a penalty in the history of this nation. If the individual mandate is upheld, the Constitution will not protect Americans from any mandate Congress wants to impose.

If Congress decides that Americans aren’t saving enough for retirement, the government could mandate that every individual open a retirement account and require that they fund it a certain level every year.

3) The right to own and operate your small business

Small businesses create over 60 percent of the nation’s new jobs. The job market is stagnant and the health care law has had a palpable chilling effect on the sector and caused many small businesses not to hire.

4) The power to decide what is medically best for our families and businesses

If ObamaCare is upheld, over half of all Americans would be forced onto some type of government-run health-care by the end of the decade. Elite bureaucrats would be in charge of deciding what medical tests you need or should have based on costs.

5) The economic future of this country

ObamaCare is already a significant drag on the nation’s economy and could threaten to sink it even further when the mandate goes into effect in 2014. Not surprisingly, its costs were vastly underestimated during the national debate.

President Obama’s 2013 budget estimated that the cost of providing health insurance to millions of middle-class Americans over ten years will jump by 30 percent.

What would be the ultimate loss here is our Federalist form of Government. It will be lost forever, not even an amendment to the constitution could change such a ruling.

Article 1; Section 8 “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Will then read:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States AND IT’S PEOPLE, and with the Indian Tribes.

There will be no way to answer such a drastic change of our nation. Answers will not come from peaceful protest, not from petitioning the government for redress of grievances, nor exercising our right to vote.

No, none of that shall work in our favor.

There is only one way back to the Republic. And with that said, I present words from the past.

"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." – Samuel Adams

I am willing to fight for what has been bequeath’d to us by our forefathers, so that I may bequeath liberty to our posterity.


Will You Do The Same?

Obamacare 'Ironclad Constitutional'

Now, you KNOW that's not me saying that.

Those are the words of the Wicked Witch of the West, Nancy Pelosi, as she marked the 2 year anniversary of the passage of Obamacare, today.

A sad day in American history, as the Federal Government, against the will of the people, took control over 1/6 of our economy, the American health care system.

"We passed healthcare as a right, for all, not just a privilege for a few" She said.
First thing, first. When government grants you rights, we have lost our liberties.
Second, privilege few? Obamacare gives a "few" the "privilege" of free healthcare from on the backs of the laboring majority.

Obama No Longer Throwing Grandma Under the Bus...

But off a cliff, so says the American Doctors for Truth.

The AD's4Truth.org released their rendition of throwing grandma over the cliff ad, when they go after Obamacare and the Dems for their attack on Medicare, with in the law.



Little hokey, but gets the message across.

Supreme Court Recusals- Should Kagan & Thomas Oblige?

As we wait for the United States Supreme Court to hear arguments over Obamacare, the debate on whether Kagan and Thomas, should recuse themselves from hearing the case is heating up.

Let’s look at the history of both Kagan and Thomas regarding Obamacare, so we are fully clear on whether either one, or both, should step aside from hearing the case.

The bill was passed by Congress and signed into law in March 2010, while Kagan was still in the solicitor general's office, and was immediately under threat of constitutional attack in the courts. At the same time, Kagan became aware that Obama was considering her to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the high court and has said that she began to scale back her involvement in ongoing matters in her office.

During her confirmation hearing, she testified that she played a minimal role in the Justice Department’s efforts to develop a litigation strategy to defend the law

But seizing upon documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request, Republicans contend she may have been more deeply involved than she let on.

Specifically, they point to several email chains that detail the administration's prep work for countering the parade of lawsuits then being filed across the country, emails that as late as March 21, 2010, carried Kagan’s name. Kagan also cheered the bill’s passage in an email to another Obama legal adviser, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard University law professor. “I hear they have the votes, Larry!!,” Kagan wrote. “Simply amazing.” She also has admitted to attending at least one meeting in which the litigation was discussed.

The DOJ documents that have been made public show that Kagan was personally involved in advising how to defend against challenges to the healthcare law.

Federal law requires recusal when a judge previously served as a government lawyer on the matter.

On the other shoe, House Democrats have been calling for Thomas to step aside from the healthcare suit because his wife, Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, has worked for a conservative group that have a stake in the outcome of the litigation.

Earlier this year, 74 Democrats sent a letter to Thomas asking him to recuse himself because of Ginni Thomas’ has worked for a conservative group that have spent considerable resource in actions taken to repeal the litigation.

The Law:
Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provides standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

So, with this knowledge presented, it appears the Kagan has more leaning against her to recuse herself.

As for Thomas, at this point, his wifes, “financial interest” is pretty clear. Ginni started a nonprofit lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activists. Her only connection to the case is someone who contributes to the group, might be involved in the case heading to the Supreme Court.

Whining Weiner Wants Waiver

Rep. Weiner(D-NY), a big advocate of Obamacare, the one who has been a guest on broadcast and cable news networks defending Obamacare, is considering to ask for a waiver for New York City to be exempt from various provisions of health care. 


Why, you might ask? Well not that, in his mind, it's a BAD law. 
No!
It all has to do with politics.
Weiner is hosting the idea of becoming NY's next mayor.
And it appears that Obamacare is not to popular with folks in the Big Apple, or Weiner wouldn't be entertaining the thought of a waiver.


And in Mark Whittington opinion (and mine) "Weiner knows, though he would never admit to it, that health care reform is a monster that is unworkable, destructive, and unpopular. So getting a waiver that he thinks is good enough for the rest of the country for the Big Apple is a no-brainer."


With nearly thousands of waivers out there, it's like candy being passed out to kids in a candy store, and waivers are becoming a popular thing for Obamacare that most, if not all Dems, thought would be a great thing for this country.


Entities like New York City are not likely to abandon Obama in 2012 anyways, but if Weiner wants to be elected Mayor.... Well... Weiner is not Obama and so getting a waiver for NYC would be really the only thing Weiner could get elected on. 

Senate Votes Down Obamacare Repeal

OK folks here we have it. The Senate has voted to keep Obamacare. All 51 Democrats, including Claire McCaskills voted against repeal, even though 71% of her state does not want Obamacare.

The AP reported:

A Republican drive to repeal the year-old health care law ended in party-line defeat in the Senate on Wednesday, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final, unpredictable verdict on an issue steeped in political and constitutional controversy. The vote was 47-51. Moments earlier, the Senate agreed to make one relatively minor change in the law, voting to strip out a paperwork requirement for businesses.

President Barack Obama, who has vowed to veto any total repeal of his signature legislative accomplishment, has said he would accept the change. It does not directly affect health care.

Republicans conceded in advance their attempt at total repeal would fall short, but they accomplished an objective of forcing rank and file Democrats to take a position on an issue that reverberated in the 2010 campaign and may play a role in 2012.

This is the list of those who voted down Repeal of Obamacare.

These are targeted elections in 2012


California - Diane Feinstein 
Delaware - Tom Carper 
Florida - Bill Nelson 
Hawaii - Daniel Akaka 
Maryland - Ben Cardin 
Michigan - Debbie Stabenow 
Missouri - Claire McCaskill 
Montana - Jon Tester 
Nebraska - Ben Nelson 
New Jersey - Bob Menendez 
New Mexico - Jeff Bingaham 
New York - Kirsten Gillibrand 
Ohio - Sherrod Brown 
Pennsylvania - Bob Casey 
Rhode Island - Sherrod Whitehouse 
Virginia - Jim Webb 
Washington - Maria Cantwell 
Wisconson - Herb Kohl


Vote Them Out!

Florida Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

Good news for us folks and States who understand the Constitution and the violation of the 111th Congress on our rights.
On to the Supreme Court we go.

MIAMI (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, ruled that the reform law's so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.
Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," the judge ruled.

The administration said it may ask the U.S. appeals court to hold off on any changes in the implementation of the law pending an appeal Judge Vinson's decision. The highly politicized issue will likely end up at the Supreme Court for final determination.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
The healthcare overhaul enacted last year, a contentious cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.

Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the individual mandate.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
RULING DRAWS SOME SHARP CRITICISM
There was immediate strong reaction to the ruling.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an influential national advocacy group that pushed for the healthcare overhaul, called Vinson's decision an example of "radical judicial activism run amok" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.
"The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," he said in a statement.
"This just adds to the conflicting nature of the rulings that we've seen so far," said Matthew Coffina, an analyst with Morningstar.


"I think everyone watching the industry at this point has been expecting the Supreme Court to ultimately decide this situation, so I think that's the main reason you're not seeing the stocks react one way or another right now," Coffina said.
The states involved in the lawsuit were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Maine, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Done!

The Republican controlled House just passed a repeal of Obamacare.


They promised their constituency they would!
AND THEY DID!
Great!


The Repeal passed with a 245-189 margin, with three Democrats voting for repeal.
Reps. Mike Ross, Dan Boren and Mike McIntyre joined 242 Republicans to tell Obama, Pelosi and Reid NO!


Reid has already threaten to not allow it to come to the Senate floor.
That would signal to most Americans, who appose Obamacare, that he just doesn't care what you think.


Further damaging the Democratic party by putting them on record in the house vote. 
But Reid is to much of a panty-waist to do what all Senators were elected to do. Vote on bills brought forth, as representatives of your constituents.


Some of the comments from the House leadership:
Speakers Boehner-The Congress can do better in terms of replacing Obamacare with common-sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance and expand access for more Americans," 


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor-"I've got a problem with the assumption here that somehow the Senate can be a place for a legislation to go into a cul-de-sac or a dead end," he said. "The American people deserve a full hearing. They deserve to see this legislation go to the Senate for a full vote."


GOOD JOB, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!

Keeping it Simple: This is the Bills wording:

To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

(a) Job-Killing Health Care Law- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010- Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

Brits Might Move to a More Competition Style Healthcare System

As the debate begins on Capital Hill about Obamacare and the deep divide between most Democrats and Republicans on this issue, a new initiative is taking place across the pond.


British Prime minister David Cameron says he plans to open up their national Health Service to competition.

Cameron's plans to shake up Britain’s universal health care system that will transfer much decision making authority to general practitioners, and thus bypassing administrators to cut out bureaucracy.

“We need modernization on both sides of the equation. Modernization to do something about the demand for public health service, and modernization to make the supply of health care more efficient, which is about opening up the system, making it more competitive, cutting out waste and bureaucracy.”

But, like always, those who benefit from a socialized healthcare system complain the loudest. The unions!

Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite, Britain's largest union doesn't agree with the reform.

“A great number of people are telling us that they think these untested, expensive health care reforms are very unwise and very, very risky,”.

And, like always, they point to some other country to make their point, but avoid the opinions of others to help save Great Britain's money in the long run.

“In Shanghai, the average child is two years ahead of a child here. In Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, or, interestingly, Poland, you are less likely to die once admitted into hospital after a heart attack than you are in the U.K.”

UMMMM not to many children die from heart attacks………………. Poor talking point.

The government’s flagship health and social care bill will be published Wednesday.

So it appears that Great Britain might be moving in the direction of more freer market competition style of healthcare, while Obama’s America is moving towards a European style of healthcare system.
Go figure!

The Founders Intention on Commerce

To many it's pretty clear that the purpose of the "interstate commerce clause" was to give the federal government the power to set standards and rules for business transactions in cases where no one State government could be said to have the ability.

At one time, different States had different laws regarding commerce, and buyers and sellers in different States had a difficult time determining which State's laws superseded the other's.

Even the States themselves had huge disagreements over such issues. So, the framers of the Constitution gave the federal government the power to enact laws that would balance the differences between States laws that took place between people in different States. It was supposed that the laws created by the Federal government would be somewhere in between those of the States involved. The framers had no intention of allowing the federal government to make up commerce laws outright! Furthermore, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause (among the several states) was to regulate the terms of the transaction, not the nature of the product itself, nor its price, nor it's requirement to participate in such transaction.

Supreme Court Cases in point:

-Justice Curtis, in Cooley v Board of Wardens (1851) outlines the case for recognizing, as a constitutional matter, zones of exclusive federal authority over commerce and other zones of concurrent state and federal authority.  Cooley, upholding a Pennsylvania law requiring that vessels entering Philadelphia harbor use of local pilots, applies a balancing test to judge the validity of the regulation.

-Baldwin v G. A. F. Seelig (1935) invalidated a New York law prohibiting the sale in the state of milk bought outside of New York.  New York argued the law was necessary to avoid price competition that would drive dairies into producing less wholesome milk.  The Court, more realistically, saw the law as protectionist.  Justice Cardozo wrote that when "a state tries to isolate itself economically, it must show an important interest for doing so and that it had no less discriminatory mean open for accomplishing its goal."

-In Philadelphia v New Jersey (1976), the Court struck down a New Jersey law that prohibited the importation of garbage into the state.  Concluding that garbage was "commerce," the Court viewed the law--despite its environmental justification--as unconstitutional discrimination against out-of-state commerce.  The Court held that as long as reasonable, non-discriminatory alternatives exist that serve the states legitimate interests, they must be used instead of a discriminatory ban.

-In Hughes v Oklahoma (1979), the Court invalidated an Oklahoma law prohibiting the interstate transportation of minnows taken from Oklahoma waters.  The Court rejected Oklahoma's law that states "own" wildlife and therefore wildlife is not "an article of commerce."  The law could be upheld only if the state could show it served a significant local interest that could not be furthered by a non-discriminatory law--this Oklahoma could not show.

-In Hunt v Washington State Apple Ass'n (1977), the Court determined that a North Carolina law that allowed only one grade (the U. S. Dep't of Agriculture's grade) to be placed on containers of apples sold in the state.  Washington's State Apple Ass'n contended that the law discriminated against Washington apples which are shipped in containers that include its own tougher state grades.

These are just a few cases in which two different entities, two different points of a single commerce interacted against each other and the Federal Government stepped in and came up with an understanding to help "regulate Commerce... among the several States".

But with these cases, there is one thing in common. None of them gave Congress the power to regulate commerce to the point of imposing damages for NOT participating in interstate commerce of ANY kind.

And with that, I foresee Obamacare will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Is it time for an Enumerated Powers Act?

I think so!

Federal Judge Finds Obamacare Unconstitutional

As reported on Conservative Perspective via CNN, a federal judge has ruled that Obamacare violates the US Constitution.

A federal judge in Virginia has ruled parts of the sweeping health care reform effort led by President Obama to be unconstitutional. This is the first federal court to strike down the law, contradicting other recent rulings the law was permissible. The key issue of contention was the “individual mandate” requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014.


H/T to Christopher

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled "This case, however, turns on a typical and uncharted applications of constitutional law interwoven with subtle political undercurrents. The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications. And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court.

The Laws Central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions."

Texan Calls for Jail Time for Enforcing Obamacare

Reported at the World Daily Net.

Texans take their rights seriously.

A bill that has been prefiled for the 2011 state legislative session creates penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalizes the health-care decision making process.

The plan by Texas Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, effectively would nullify the federal health care legislation in his state.

At least, that is what the bill that "relates to federal health care legislation" says:

The federal Act:

(1) is invalid in this state;

(2) is not recognized by this state;

(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and

(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.

It provides that "a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter."


It explains that the "assumption of power by the federal government in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872; Pub. L. No. 111-152) interferes with the right of the people of this state to regulate health care as they determine is appropriate, and makes a mockery of James Madison's assurance in Federalist Paper Number 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are 'few and defined' while those that remain in the state governments are 'numerous and indefinite.'"

The rest can be read here.


The States are fighting back. 
20 have joined a legal challenge to Obamacare.
1 is going it alone.
And Wisconsin might join the 20 in Florida.
Missourians have passed a proposal similar to Virginia's law.
Got to love Texas determination to jump in the fray!

SEIU 1199 Backpedals

Yesterday SEIU 1199 said this about dropping dependant Healthcare coverage:


“…New federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26. Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Now Today SEIU 1199 Said This:

“The 1199 SEIU Home Care Employees Benefit Fund did not drop dependent coverage because of the new federal healthcare reform law. We applaud the new law’s commitment to extend coverage to millions of working Americans who are currently uninsured.


Our Fund was compelled to discontinue coverage for dependent children solely because insurance costs continued to rise, but state funding for these vulnerable, low-wage workers did not. Instead, state Medicaid funding to the home health services sector has been cut 9 separate times in just the last 3 years….


As a not-for-profit Taft-Hartley Trust Fund jointly managed by representatives from both labor and management, their primary function is to maintain benefits for our members. However, the Fund has worked diligently over the years to provide cost effective dependent coverage for our members’ families whenever possible. We certainly hope that additional state funding to support health benefits for our homecare workers and their families will be made available in the future.


In 2014, the new federal healthcare law will expand coverage to 32 million children and adults through increased Medicaid funding to states. For millions of working families, this day cannot come soon enough.”

So here we have a 24 hour spin by SEIU's largest affiliate. But one thing’s for certain, they are advocating a single payer system and want to kill the private sector.

Key liberal talking point here… 'Commitment to extend coverage to millions of Americans… Not-for-profit… expand coverage to millions of children and adults'.

Did Obama write a book on what talking points his followers and loyal subjects should say at all times?

If the law just said “To get millions of un-insured American affordable coverage”… “ stop denying coverage”…” Stop cancelling peoples coverage when they get sick” then, great, that would have been about a 40 page bill… However they went over board to kill the private sector, dragging every American under it and requires Americans to buy commodity and the states to pony up more dollars for it … There are over 2,000 page to this statue… that’s 1,960 pages to much for just a few talking points by the left.