Obama/Democrats ___ screw consent of the governed when it comes to health insurance!

[johnwk]

Let us look at the facts!


Obama care proposes to create a federal insurance regulatory board to regulate insurance companies now regulated under State authority. In view of the fact that no authority has been granted to the federal government under our existing Constitution allowing the federal government to enter the various states and regulate the subject matter in question, every member of Congress voting in favor of Obama Care would be violating their oath of office and voting to usurp a power forbidden by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


The irrefutable fact is, the People of the various States have not given their consent via Article V of our Constitution granting power to Congress to enter the States and regulate State created insurance companies. And, keep in mind that granting new powers to Congress under Article V of our Constitution requires consent of the people by the “Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof“ - - - not a simple majority vote in Congress which the Democrat party leadership and Obama is attempting to use to seize such power, and as such, is an unmistaken attempted act of tyranny!


Obama care also proposes to use federal taxing authority to tax the people in every state to increase Medicaid funding in every state. In addition, Obama’s plan would also provide extra funding to states that have expanded their Medicaid programs. But where in our Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax the economic resources away from the people in the various states in such a broad and encompassing manner and for the purpose of returning this very money for a subject matter not within Congress’s constitutionally authorized functions? Again, every member of Congress voting in favor of Obama Care is violating their oath of office and voting to usurp a power forbidden by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


Obama care also proposes to use the force of federal taxation to provide subsidies for a privileged economic class in each of the various states so they may “buy” their own health insurance on the open market beyond what Obama care calls for. But what power has been granted to Congress allowing Congress to tax some of the people in some of the states to provide “subsidies” to a specific economic class in each state so they may buy their own health insurance?


Obama care also proposes to allow the federal government to enter the various states and fine individuals who do not buy health insurance. In addition, Obama Care also proposes to impose these federal fines on individuals based upon an economic class, which violates equal protection of the law. And, Obama care also proposes to have the federal government enter the various states an fine employees who don’t offer health insurance coverage, and again does so by an arbitrary class--- exempting businesses with 50 or fewer employees. But where in our Constitution has Congress been granted power to enter the various states and fine the residents therein who do not purchase health insurance, or require businesses therein to provide health insurance to their employees by threat of a fine? Once again, the unavoidable truth is, every member of Congress voting in favor of Obama Care is violating their oath of office and voting to usurp a power forbidden by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. They would in fact be engaging in an act of tyranny as the people have not consented to granting the necessary powers to Congress as outlined under Article V of our Constitution.


JWK


That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed --- Declaration of Independence

[johnwk]

This is absolutely amazing! Such an important issue and such little interest. Seems that a large number of Americans are comfortable keeping silent and have no problem with the federal government entering their State and assuming a despotic and absolute regulatory power not authorized by our federal Constitution.

I wonder if they will also be quiet when our folks in Washington decide that since the people have been complacent in allowing a despotic federal insurance regulatory board to be created to replace their State’s insurance regulatory board, what is not left within the State for the federal government to seize a tyrannical regulatory power over? How about a state’s utility regulatory commission, or its power to regulate its own schools, parks, public roads and highways, or even your local entertainment establishment or favorite restaurant? Do you want Obama and Pelosi regulating that too? What is not left on the table for the federal government to regulate, and do so with an iron fist, and without such power being consented to as required under Article V of our Constitution which calls for consent of the people via the “Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof“, and not a simple majority vote in Congress which our folks in Washington are now attempting to use to seize a federal invasive regulatory power over a subject matter not granted to Congress by our written Constitution?

Were our founding fathers not clear in their desire to create a federal government with defined and limited powers as are summarized in Federalist No. 45?

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And were our founding fathers engaging in an act of futility when they specifically gave force and effect to Federalist No. 45 when they adopted the Tenth Amendment into our Constitution?

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.


And, was our very own Supreme Court, less than twenty years after the adoption of our Constitution, making something up when it articulated the founding fathers clear intentions regarding our federal government?

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ___ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


I don’t know where this attempted grab for such an invasive power will lead or if it will be successful, but at this point in time it sure seems that our country is being taken over by domestic enemies without a shot being fired and the American people are asleep at the switch. How sad to see the American people succumb to a defenseless enemy whose only strength is an illusion that it acts within the four corners of our written Constitution.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.