Posts Tagged ‘penumbra’

13 States Have ALREADY Sued Over ObamaCare Obomination

March 23, 2010

13 states have already filed suit to stop the monster of ObamaCare.  A total of 38 states (76%) are now working on their own versions of “the spirit of ’76.”

From the AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

You DO have to kind of laugh at the propaganda that the AP feels they must insert: “Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding,” as though every single legal expert has ruled, and the AP merely duly reported.

Bullpuckey.  There are plenty of “legal experts” who think the exact opposite.  And it couldn’t be more dishonest of the Associated Press to imply that such isn’t the case.

One of my favorite “legal experts” who disagrees with the AP’s monolithic assertion is Jay Sekulow, who has argued before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and frequently won.  In another article which has a rather different slant from the AP’s bias, he had the following to say:

The ACLJ says it will file amicus briefs on behalf of thousands of its supporters in the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law by numerous states.

“Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions of pro-life Americans who don’t want to be forced to purchase a health care package that funds abortion,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told

“We support the litigation being initiated by a number of states and plan to file amicus briefs in those cases representing thousands of our members. This health care law should not be forced upon the American people. We believe the courts will agree,” he added.

Sekulow added: “These legal challenges will be numerous and occur in many jurisdictions. The constitutional issues at stake are significant and it’s likely this will end up before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

I’m not trying to present Jay Sekulow as the greatest of all “legal experts.”  But there is no question that Sekulow IS a legal expert.  His American Center for Law and Justice has been called a “powerful counterweight to the ACLU” by Time Magazine.

Oh, there are other ones, such as Dr. Randy Barnett, who argues regarding ObamaCare that:

Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people. For this reason it is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold this assertion of power.

How many legal experts am I supposed to produce to show that the Associated Press is full of crap?

One of the constitutional issues derives from the 10th Amendment, which reads:

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.

Now, I know that liberals are often able to find penumbras and emanations that justify them to do pretty much whatever the hell they want to justify, but you show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to ram ObamaCare down our throats or to force citizens to purchase insurance just for the privilege of breathing.

The other issue is the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Now again, you need one hell of a penumbra and emanation to see in this clause the right for the federal government to force private citizens to purchase insurance from private companies.

It’s one thing to say the federal government can regulate, quite another to assert that the federal government has the power under this clause to force whoever they want to buy whatever they want from whoever they want.  Unless “commerce” is to be defined as a transaction that takes place at the point of a gun aimed at the purchaser’s chest, with the government saying, “Buy or die.”

This is what Dr. Randy Barnett was getting to: to grant the constitutionality of ObamaCare amounts to a massive increase in federal power, which would make the states and the people vassals and the federal government a tyrant.  It would no longer make sense to ask what the federal government can do under the commerce clause; it would only make sense to ask, “Is there anything the federal government CAN’T do under the commerce clause?” And the answer would be basically no.

The CBO, in a more honorable day, stated this abuse of federal power quite clearly when it responded to the individual mandate that Bill Clinton sought to impose:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

One of the interesting things about ObamaCare is that it never even attempts to state the cost of the individual mandates.  That figure is nowhere found in the CBO score.  It isn’t deemed a “tax” because the federal government doesn’t take the money.  Rather, you are forced to give your money to a private insurance company.

It is a fact that ObamaCare represents a massive unprecedented takeover of not only our health care system, but of our way of life, by the federal government.  Nothing like this has EVER been done in our entire history.  And Democrats frankly don’t care about this abuse of our history, our laws, and our way of life because they have always looked to the socialism, Marxism, and fascism of Europe as their model.

The one thing I can take some hope in is that the Supreme Court still has a 5-4 majority of conservative justices.  I expect those justices to recognize that Barack Obama shouldn’t have unlimited power as the head of the federal government to impose his will upon the states and upon the American people.

And Obama certainly didn’t do his standing with Justice Samuel Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts when he contemptuously demonized the Supreme Court at his last State of the Union.

Let me ask one final question: suppose you are a liberal, and you want ObamaCare.  Are you willing to take in trade for that a Republican president and Republican Congress enjoying this unprecedented federal power?  It is increasingly obvious that Republicans are going to take back the House and Senate in the 2010 election.  You’d better realize that your support of ObamaCare now means you will be voting in favor of the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” after we take back the White House and do unto you twice what you did unto us.

Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings said,

‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along…”

You Democrats might be mocking us now, but just you wait until you see what OUR interpretation of “There ain’t no rules around here” looks like.  You will have opened the door to your own future payback.  You just wait until we have our chance to use the raw, naked power of government to impose our very righteous anger back on you.

I submit that neither side should want the kind of unprecedented federal power that will be necessary to implement ObamaCare.