Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Maybe?)
Townhall.com ^ | May 18, 2014 | Joanne Moudy

Posted on 05/18/2014 11:13:38 AM PDT by Kaslin

There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?

On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.

Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.

The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.

The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.

The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.

Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.

The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”

In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.

Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”

Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GOP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”

Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”

According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.

Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.

For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 0bamacare; obama; obamacare; obamalies; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 05/18/2014 11:13:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 05/18/2014 11:14:57 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

What do you mean Unconstitutional ,Nancy Pelosi say George Washington gave it Thumbs Up


3 posted on 05/18/2014 11:20:39 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Maybe?)

MAYBE??!!??

Ya think??

We've been beating the tip of the iceberg to death, all the other criminal government abuses.

This one is the rest of the iceberg, and the longest long term injury to the republic.

Both in terms of precedence for legislative abuses, and for the "fascistification" of the country, as it relates to private business and individual freedom generally..

4 posted on 05/18/2014 11:21:21 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?


5 posted on 05/18/2014 11:24:52 AM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


6 posted on 05/18/2014 11:25:18 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The “fourth estate”has morphed into a 5th column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

I assume that is a rhetorical question


7 posted on 05/18/2014 11:30:11 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ((If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They (Reid) took a legitimate House-originated budget/funding bill and GUTTED it and added PPACA. The conference committee passed it back to Pelosi who deemed it “Passed”.

Like it or not, the bill number originated in the House. How they got there and by what outrageous machinations are immaterial. Our illustrious Supreme Court will rule it such.

There isn’t any ‘there’ here. You don’t like it and I don’t like it but that’s what it is.

I can’t tell you what I think what should happen to DC.


8 posted on 05/18/2014 11:33:40 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I would be surprised if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case


9 posted on 05/18/2014 11:35:50 AM PDT by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The RATS had full control of the House and Senate, why would they need to play games with a house bill to pass owebamacare?

That part never made sense to me.


10 posted on 05/18/2014 11:45:27 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Yep. The Court has already spoken.


11 posted on 05/18/2014 11:49:54 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

Article V


12 posted on 05/18/2014 11:51:54 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Maybe?)

Why did it take four years for this obvious challenge seriously and vigorously to be pursued?

Well, in the matter of "standing," and the litmus test that to have "standing" injury must be demonstrated, the injury was to the House, and the RICO violation by Nancy Pelosi et al made it possible to ignore the permanent damage done to the carefully crafted separation of powers and check and balances in the Constitution. That it was either seditious, treasonous, or perjurious should have a bearing on the question.

Aside from Justice Roberts declaring Obamacare to be a tax (HINT! HINT!) there are more condemning issues at play for Pelosi, as speaker. The validity of Obama's qualifications as a candidate for president was made entirely on her opinion, not facts; and her refusal to assert the constitutional enumerated powers of the House clearly establishes that she was contemptuous of her fiduciary duties to the American people AND the clear requirements of the Constitution, an inferior intellect, or a criminal bent.
Or all of the above.

So I repeat...WHY DID THIS TAKE 4 YEARS???

13 posted on 05/18/2014 11:52:08 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

You are exactly correct. Hate it as we will, we are forced to eat this sh*t sandwich.

But then there is Ted Cruz....and there is also my tagline.


14 posted on 05/18/2014 11:54:45 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Thank you so much Kaslin, for finding and posting this concise and complete narrative describing the disastrous genesis of the ACA, aka Obamacare.

I have been searching for just such a most needed historical reference for my records and for future use.

Bring the 2014 elections ON!

15 posted on 05/18/2014 11:56:27 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Did anyone post a picture of "Capt. Obvious?"

5.56mm

16 posted on 05/18/2014 11:58:13 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I agree. No way the Supremes find it unconstitutional on these grounds.


17 posted on 05/18/2014 12:00:12 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro


That's it right there in one nutshell. We have traitors in every branch of the Government.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798
18 posted on 05/18/2014 12:05:08 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
Did anyone post a picture of "Capt. Obvious?"

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional (Maybe?)

Here ya go.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

19 posted on 05/18/2014 12:12:29 PM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Don't comply!
20 posted on 05/18/2014 12:12:52 PM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?

File Violation of RICO Statutes charges (class action?).

1. It qualifies.
2. Any individual or group can file those charges.

21 posted on 05/18/2014 12:24:12 PM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s unconstitutional. The supreme justice acted stupidly when he gave his decision.


22 posted on 05/18/2014 12:36:42 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Like it or not, the bill number originated in the House. How they got there and by what outrageous machinations are immaterial. Our illustrious Supreme Court will rule it such.

That is an absurd response.
I'm no more a Constitutional Scholar than Omugabe is, but if memory serves me right not all House Originated bills conclude their journey into law. Nor do they all address taxation revenue.

Why wasn't one of those "dead" numbers used?

In other words, the number of the bill originated in the house; the remainder of the proposed bill, or "law"" did not.

Sending just a number to the senate for approval, a blank check, so to speak, has never happened in history, and is meaningless.

Even historic legal systems and lawyers are not that stupid. In spite of the historic observation that "The Law is A Ass..."

23 posted on 05/18/2014 12:38:23 PM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good grace to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back; Kaslin; All

Of course it’s unconstitutional.

Roberts plainly said it’s a tax.

Is it a “tax” on alcohol, tobacco, firearms?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.

Is it a “tax” on income?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.

Is it a tax on foreign investments?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.

Is it a tax on “living and breathing”?
Yes. It is a tax on life itself.

I wonder what the tea party would have been, if instead of a two cent tax on tea, the tax had been on life itself!

This demonstrates absolutely how out-of-touch Washington, DC. is. This, more than anything, shows us how they have LOST the ideas of the founders.


24 posted on 05/18/2014 12:46:14 PM PDT by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Look folks the fix is in..DC is just one politically incestuous cesspool..there still a lot of back biting going on it DC but is mostly now going on during consensual sodomy with each other in thier bedrooms

DC is producing laws that are the equivalent of inbred morons princes of the royalty of old sent out to terrorize the serfs

All the houses of power, all the factions, in DC now have an interest in protecting each others progeny because in the long run it supports their mutual "collective" power over you

Like I said all the houses of power in DC are now inbred royalty relatives like 16th century European kingdoms, it's one big family and your not part of it ..you service it

25 posted on 05/18/2014 12:57:50 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Not at all.

I am not aware of a legal way for We the People to put an end to illegal and unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

If all three are corrupt, who wields the checks and balances?


26 posted on 05/18/2014 12:58:42 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

> When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?

Hopefully scorched earth...


27 posted on 05/18/2014 12:59:39 PM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I don’t think so, at least not in this case.

By the time an Article V convention is held, and 38 states ratify any changes to remedy the problem, the evildoers will be long gone, enjoying their ill-gotten riches.


28 posted on 05/18/2014 1:00:38 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: publius911

I like the notion, publius, but if, as I maintain, the court system is as corrupt as the other two branches and refuses to hear the argument, then what?


29 posted on 05/18/2014 1:03:14 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
Admit The People made a horrendous mistake when they bought Progressive Snake-Oil in 1913.

Return the senate back to the states.

30 posted on 05/18/2014 1:03:32 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I agree!

Repealing the 17th Amendment has always been on my “To Do” list!

Along with the 16th, of course!


31 posted on 05/18/2014 1:05:24 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

> Yep. The Court has already spoken.

I would be very interested to hear the REAL reason Roberts voted to impose this travesty of justice against the will of the people. I bet you our suspicions would be conirmed that he was threatened and blackmailed and that the ACA’s primary purpose was never about proving healthcare. Surely Roberts studied the damn thing. Well didn’t he?


32 posted on 05/18/2014 1:08:59 PM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Obama and Holder have given us the answer; both have said that various Attorneys General don’t have to enforce any law they don’t like, haven’t they? C.f., US immigration laws; various executive orders exempting favored businesses and labor unions FRom Obamacare? And others, of course — these are the most egregious.

I mean, if the head shed says states and the federal government can ignore laws they don’t like, surely, We the People can do the same?

<\sarcasm>


33 posted on 05/18/2014 1:17:08 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I confess that I am putting a whole hope of hope on this one.

SIGH.


34 posted on 05/18/2014 1:23:58 PM PDT by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911

My response isn’t absurd. Reid’s actions were. Don’t shoot the messenger for bad news.


35 posted on 05/18/2014 1:28:36 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Because Scott Brown was elected to Ted Kennedy’s old seat, so the Dems no longer had 60 votes to close debate on new bills in the Senate. So they had to use a bill that had passed in the house, because “reconciliations” don’t need more than 50 votes to close debate.


36 posted on 05/18/2014 1:34:00 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

“When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?”

Parliamentary Law at the local level remains and can be used to cleanup the political and judicial offices from the bottom up.


37 posted on 05/18/2014 1:34:04 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: publius911

bkmk


38 posted on 05/18/2014 2:30:02 PM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
"...various executive orders exempting favored businesses and labor unions FRom Obamacare?"

That's the arguement that should be getting the most traction, but isn't.

39 posted on 05/18/2014 2:34:57 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Whatever Obama had on Roberts, he STILL has on Roberts. So this thing ain’t going to be overturned by the USSC.

The only way it will be overturned is if we elect Ted Cruz as POTUS and we have GOP controlled Congress.


40 posted on 05/18/2014 3:03:19 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

I think I’ve stated before in so many words....when the chief law enforcement agency ignores the law,then there is no law.


41 posted on 05/18/2014 3:33:19 PM PDT by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: oldtech

There is NO “Maybe” about it, he IS unconstitutional and needs to be impeached ASAP. Stop kicking the can down the road and get on with it.


42 posted on 05/18/2014 3:59:06 PM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I’m interested.

How would that work in today’s environment?


43 posted on 05/18/2014 4:39:14 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

Ophonybama and his administration has Cloward-Plivened us!

He has so overwhelmed the “system” that the Congress cannot get on top of any one of the Ophonybama’s flagrant law breaking actions or constitutional violations before yet another scandal is brought to light.

This is, of course, by design! I’d wager that if we were able to get our hands on them, the recordings of the inner circle goings on would lay out the administration’s step-by-step plan to totally overwhelm the system.

Furthermore, they plan to keep it overwhelmed until Ophonybama is finished with us, and the USA is reduced to a second rate power.

We might be able to stop him, but it will take a lot of courageous people calling him out!


44 posted on 05/18/2014 4:47:51 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Maybe Roberts will be willing to take one for the Gipper?

And rule for We the People, the US Constitution and against Ophonybama?

Just to see what will happen?

We could pray for something like that to happen!


45 posted on 05/18/2014 4:49:34 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: oldtech

Most troubling, isn’t it?

Not to mention that virtually every executive branch department in the federal government is arming itself to the teeth!

What is up with that?


46 posted on 05/18/2014 4:52:50 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveA37

Boehner and the Republican leadership have no balls, Dave! No balls!


47 posted on 05/18/2014 4:53:50 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

Parliamentary law is much abused in today’s political environment. The Establishment Republicans abuse parliamentary law at the precinct, county, state, and national level conventions just as the Democrats do even more so at their conventons. These entrenched and challenger political parties get away with such abuses because the grassroots voters are too few and ill prepared to challenge and defeat such abuses. The American educational system has done too good of a job of keeping young and old citizens ignorant about their individual and group powers to wield parliamentary law.

The solution is for enough people to get determined enough to educate themselves and each other about their powers under parliamentary law and organize to meet on a frequent basis around a very few and fundamental constitutional issues which the vast majority can reach consensus upon. They have to keep the group’s political palnks in their political platform few enough to maintain a strong group consensus, and agree to disagree on all other political issues which can break up the group.

Having organized around the key and perpetual constitutional issues, the group/s can exercise their rights at the local government meetings and begin to put their own members into the local political offices and challenge the top down candidates appointed by the major parties’ state committees. At that point things get real interesting as the establkishment elites of the major parties discover they are losing control of their voting precincts, local conventions, and local governments.

As your group secures control of the political meetings and enough government offices, it then becomes possible to introduce and sometimes pass legislation returning certain fundamental rights to the control of local governments now controlled by the representatives of your own local political organizations. The right to form grand juries who may then indict government officials for corruption and unconstitutional acts is one of the foremost rights to regain. Making U.S. Senators accountable to the State governments and the citizens is another key objective. Holding the judicial branch accountable for unconstitutional acts with impeachments is another avenue of reform. But securing control of local government and respect for parliamentary law is mandatory in order to pursue the larger issues.


48 posted on 05/18/2014 8:27:48 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Evil will leak through the most tightly crafted laws every time!


49 posted on 05/18/2014 8:51:08 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I agree that your solution is the ideal long run solution.

What do we do in the meantime?

And how do you think we should go about keeping a lid on those who disrespect our laws and our constitution will be?


50 posted on 05/18/2014 9:27:59 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson