EMPLOYERS,
DOCTORS, OBAMACARE, AND U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES
As
the nightmare known as Obamacare continues, even the Marxists (aka Democrats)
are starting to balk.
“We know from reading Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution
that health care is not an enumerated power granted to Congress.”
Devvy
Kidd, NewsWithViews, December 15, 2012
"The catalogue of means and actions which might be
imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and
comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical
attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education
of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed
as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.
Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate
interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?
Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the
social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of
commerce as such? We think the answer is plain.
These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional
power."
U.S.
Supreme Court [RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON RR. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)]
By: Devvy
December 15, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
As the nightmare known
as Obamacare continues to slap everyone across the face with its blatant
unconstitutional sections, even the Marxists (aka Democrats) are starting to
balk:
Religious organizations
have been fighting to stop implementation of certain provisions that violate
their religious beliefs:
But, what about
employers and doctors who will be so negatively impacted by that monstrosity?
Let's take employers
first.
Small Employers Weigh
Impact of Providing Health Insurance - "By 2014, businesses with 50 or
more full-time employees will be expected to offer as yet undefined affordable
coverage, based on an employee's income. For employers that fail to offer such
coverage, the law typically calls for a penalty of $2,000 a worker, excluding
the first 30 employees."
Look at this U.S.
Supreme Court decision:
RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)
Argued March 13, 14,
1935
Decided May 6, 1935
"The catalogue of
means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business,
tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless.
Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for
housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with
equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain
and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate
interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?
Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the
social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of
commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie
outside the orbit of congressional power."
Congress
has only the powers enumerated in Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution,
which is why the Federal Department of Education, the SBA, the EPA, HHS and
many other cabinets and agencies ARE unconstitutional.
While I'm not a lawyer,
I know how to read. I've also been blessed the past two decades with having
good, dear friends who are constitutional attorneys with decades of experience
that have taken their precious time to help me learn so much about the
Constitution, unconstitutional laws and how to read court decisions. When reading
court decisions, it's very important to read the footnotes and then go read
what the justices (or federal or state judges) used in making their decision.
And, yeah, it takes a lot of time to do this kind of research. Some days I
spend doing nothing but reading decisions and chasing down the footnotes.
In the case above, the
court basically said employers are not required to provide for the
"satisfaction and comfort" of employees. Forcing a private sector
employer to provide medical health coverage (which no one even knows yet what
that is going to be) absolutely could be considered to "relieve the
employee of mental strain and worry". Forcing employers in the private
sector to provide health care coverage has nothing to do with interstate
commerce, companies operating safely or anything other than the social welfare
of workers.
While the justices wrote
heavily in that decision about interstate commerce, what
this really boils down to is whether or not Congress has the constitutional
authority to force employers to provide Obamacare to employees.
I frequently quote
Joseph Story, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Commentaries on the
Constitution, 1833:
"Another
not unimportant consideration is that the powers of the general government will
be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as
war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce. In its internal
operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations
beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and other relations, between the
states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the
other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal
order, improvement and prosperity of the state."
We must also look to the
Tenth Amendment: 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.
We know
from reading Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution that health care is not an
enumerated power granted to Congress. We should also go back and look at the Zellman
memo:
"...for a law to be
valid, it must be constitutional and second, let's remember what killed
Comrade Hillary Clinton's attempt back in 1993 when she was co-president. The
Zellman memo was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in an effort to
find out what went on in those secret health care meetings:
"Memorandum for
Walter Zellman from Sallyanne Payton, clearly marked: Preliminary Draft for
Official Use Only. Do Not Quote or Release For Any Purpose, page 4, Health Care
Task Reform under Hillary Clinton. Please note these sections:
"(b) may the
federal government use other actors in the governmental system and the private
sector as its agents and give them orders as though they were parts of a
prefectorial system? The short answer is "no.
"State
governments are independent, although subordinated, sovereignties, not subdivisions
of the federal government.
"Although the
federal government may regulate many of their functions directly [as well, for
example, it subjects state water districts to the Clean Water Act], it may not require them to exercise their own governmental
powers in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be
encouraged, bribed or threatened into entering into joint federal state
programs of various sorts, from unemployment insurance to Medicaid; but they
may not be commanded directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the
service of federal policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth
Amendment that seems to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ [Dept. of
Justice] memorandum for a fuller elaboration."
Additionally, the so-called
reporting requirements by employers will cost them a lot of money which down
the road means layoffs or no new hiring. The U.S. Congress has zero authority
to force employers in the private sector to dance to their tune and it's long
past time to fight them.
I'm sure there are many
more cases, but the bottom line is this: Employers across this country need to
join together and file a lawsuit.
If you own a business
and know three or four other business owners (or more), join together and
retain a top notch law firm. If you have six, eight or ten businesses, the pain
of attorney's fees is lessened by quite a bit. You must fight back or there will
be no end to destroying all the sacrifices you have made building your
business. I absolutely believe you can prevail if the argument is presented
from a solid constitutional basis with previous court decisions that favor the
argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court
rarely overturns another Supreme Court decision, but it can happen. However, since
1935 nothing has changed except the drive to destroy our constitutional
republic, slide us into socialism and then eventually, communism.
Doctors
The abomination called Obamacare
contains endless panels and commissions that dictate to doctors how they will
take care of their own patients. The 'death' panels are real, as well as forcing
doctors to spend their own resources to compile data bases about their patients
making sure your personal life will be jeopardized by leaks or sophisticated
hackers. No where in Art. 1, Sec. 8 does it give the maniacs in the U.S.
Congress the authority to force your doctor to turn over all your medical
records for some electronic database.
The same plan of attack
for employers also applies to doctors throughout this country whether you're a
single practitioner or belong to a medical group, the U.S. Supreme Court has
made several decisions that favor you:
Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47
S.Ct. 210 (1926): “It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of
medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly
restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free
exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect
belongs to the states exclusively.”
Lower circuit:
United States v. Anthony
et al.,
15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D. Cal. 1936) (June 23 1936)
Nos. 12069-12072. United
States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division
"I am referring to
these facts in order to indicate that we must bear in mind the purpose of the
act — that the act is a borderline statute which must be interpreted in such a
manner as to bring it within the constitutional power. And if we depart from
it and interpret it either as attempting to regulate the disposition and sale
of narcotics or attempting the regulation of medicine, we extend the act to the
realm which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the federal government cannot
enter, under the penalty of unconstitutionality.
"The Linder Case (Linder
v. United States [1925] 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39
A.L.R. 229) is very important. We all seem to agree, whether we read it alike
or not, that it determines this case, so far as the law is concerned. I wish to
refer to it for the present only for the purpose of pointing out that the moment
we assume that this act regulates the sale within the state of narcotics and
that it aims to regulate the practice of medicine, we must hold it
unconstitutional.
Constitutional attorney,
Larry Becraft, with more than 35 years of experience dealing primarily with
federal laws has this to say: "There is a constitutional problem
regarding Obamacare that nobody has mentioned: it violates principles of equal
protection. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains an equal
protection component, and thus equal protection principles apply to the feds.”
See Bolling v Sharpe,
347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515
U.S. 200, 224 (1995). " The rest of Larry's writing can be
found here. I highly recommend reading it.
Stand up for the
Constitution
Judge Andrew Napolitano:
"I was interviewing a Congressman from South Carolina, Jim Clyburn, who's
the number three ranking Democrat in the house, and I asked him quite simply
and plainly where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to
manage health care? He told me, "Judge, most of what we do down
here, (referring to Washington) is not authorized by the Constitution."
Clyburn's constituents
obviously approve of their representative being a lawless, oath breaking
stinking socialist, but he's not alone:
Just as I urge employers
to fight, I pray doctors across this country will band together and file
lawsuits in as many states as possible. Ten doctors as plaintiffs greatly
reduces the cost of a lawsuit. If they don't, the delivery of quality medical
care in this country will continue to hurt patients and doctors as well.
As for large employers,
one has to understand who destroyed the finest health care delivery system on
this earth. Blame the U.S. Congress beginning in 1973:
"We should remember
that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of
government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest
employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows
businesses — but not individuals — to deduct the cost of health insurance
premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health
insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic
coverage.
"While many in
Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the
present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual,
government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised
benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself
for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government — in
the form of “universal coverage” — is the answer. But government already is
involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare,
Medicaid, and other programs." And: Blame Congress for HMO's by Twila Brase, a registered nurse
and President of the Citizens' Council on Health Care & former Congressman
and physician, Dr. Ron Paul.
Americans need to become
educated with the facts and stop playing into the hands of those who wish to
destroy this republic by constantly chanting: It's the Republicans or Democrats
or the illegitimate usurper camped out in the White House. It's both parties
who have been part of destroying health care by forcing unconstitutional
"laws" down the throats of doctors and other medical care providers.
One other important
argument:
"The Pacific Legal
Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm, has opened up a new front
in conservatives' never-ending struggle to wipe Obamacare off the books. Their
secret weapon? The Origination Clause of Article I, section 7, which states
that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
The key idea is that the Supreme Court recently upheld the individual mandate
as a tax. But if the mandate is a tax, the PLF argues, then it is a bill for
raising revenue. That means that the Affordable Care Act must have begun in the
House of Representatives. And it did not."
Violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment
Obamacare just raised your health care premium by $63:
"Among the regulations being rushed out the door by the Department of
Health and Human Services 32 months after Obamacare passed is a requirement
that every plan in America be subject to a $63 fee. That $63 is part of a fund
to subsidize people with pre-existing conditions, who are more expensive to
cover but whose costs must be transferred to healthier individuals in the new
system."
Thirteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction."
Neither
the U.S. Congress or one of their unconstitutional cabinets has any authority
to steal the fruits of my labor and increase my private health care insurance
premium by any amount of dollars to subsidize people with pre-existing
conditions or any condition for that matter. Involuntary servitude
means: "Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are
involuntariness, which is compulsion to act against one's will, and servitude,
which is some form of labor for another."
It doesn't just apply to
slavery. A person working and paying their own high insurance premiums is now
going to be stolen from to pay for someone else's health conditions. My husband and I pay
for our own health care premiums, yet now the thieves in the unconstitutional
DHHS are going to steal from me to pay for someone else's medical problems? If
I get a bill for that, believe me, I'll be talking to an attorney because I am
not going to take this like a slave. Whether it's $63 bux or $630, it's still
wrong.
Important links:
© 2012 -
NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
