Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

Here's some points for Oklahoma to consider with respect to nullifying Obamacare mandate.


Regardless whether the corrupt federal government wants to call the Obamacare mandate a tax or a penalty, please consider the following disturbing information concerning activist justices, including Justice Roberts, who supported Obamacare. Regardless that Roberts referenced the Gibbons v. Ogden case in the Obamacare opinion, he seemingly ignored two key statements in the Gibbons opinion which clearly indicate, imo, that Congress has no constitutional authority to make legislation of any kind regulating public healthcare.


In fact, note that the first statement below clarifies, in a single sentence, that not only is public healthcare a state power issue, sovereign state powers to address public healthcare issues protected by the 10th Amendment, but also that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce; FDR's activist justices got the Commerce Clause wrong in Wickard v. Filburn.


"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."  --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.


"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.


In other words, Congress cannot make laws to lay taxes or establish penalties in the name of intrastate public healthcare any more than it can make laws regulating 1st Amendment protected religious expression and freedom of press.


Here's two more excerpts from USSC case opinions which likewise indicate that Congress has no constitutional authority to make laws regulating intrastate healthcare.  Note that Justice Barbour referenced the above excerpt from Gibbons in New York v. Miln, expanding it as follows.


"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." --Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.


And before Constitution-ignoring FDR nuked the Supreme Court with activist justices, Constitution-respecting justices had again emphasized that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate medical practice.


“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.


Sadly, until the states decide to delegate to Congress via constitutional amendment the specific power to tax and spend in the name of public healthcare, the federal government's unconstitutional power grab concerning Obamacare is stalling the states from establishing their own healthcare programs, evidenced by Massachusetts' RomneyCare.  Article V of the Constitution is the best kept secret of the unconstitutionally big federal government imo.


2 years, 9 months ago on Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate


 @Alex Hamilton John Bingham had officially clarified that 14A did not take away state powers both before and after the ratification of that amendment.


"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States."  --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1866.  (last paragraph of first column)


"No right reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…" --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1871. (first or second paragraph of first column, depending on how you count paragraphs.)


Note that Bingham's latter statement is found on the next page after the page where Bingham had mentioned concerns about the Barron case.


And the reason why many people today believe that the 14A applied the BoR in its entirety to the states, including the BoR's prohibitions on certain powers of Congress, is probably the following.  Constitution-ignoring FDR was determined to establish a majority of likewise-minded justices on the USSC.   He succeeded in doing so by the early 1940s, activist justices ignoring Bingham's clarification of the scope of Sec. 1 of 14A when deciding cases.

2 years, 9 months ago on A False Premise Makes for a False Court Ruling