Why is Obamacare unconstitutional?

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

The founders believed that a monarch (or dictator or any sort of legislative body) should not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Of course this doesn’t apply to rules governing civil society such as criminal laws against things like rape or thievery, but we aren’t discussing that here. We are discussing being forced to buy something, possibly against your will. In other words, inactivity.

The federal government, with Obamacare, is forcing Americans to buy health insurance. It is not free. It must be bought and paid for.

Poor people will get reimbursed when they file their taxes, but they will still have to fork out the monthly premium. They might get the money back at the end of the year, but they will still be forced to buy it, even if they can’t afford the monthly premium. This seems to be a detail that most liberals gloss over in their rush to declare a human rights victory of some sort.

Just where is a 19 year old going to get the 600$ a month to pay for their own health insurance on minimum wage (round that off to 9.25$ an hour for 40 hours a week and that’s 1480$ a month) for a single person? This is 40% that hypothetical persons income. Employers aren’t going to offer it as a benefit of employment if all Americans are forced to buy it themselves. Where is a family of 5 living on an income of 1450$ a month going to get 1200$ a month for health insurance? Or does the insurance company bill the Fed?

-- "militia" had two meanings even back then. The first was that group of armed civilians that could be called out by the government as a de facto civilian standing army. The second was the existence of an armed populace which could defend itself against government tyranny, as was the intent of the Second Amendment. So cofnusing the second definition with the first is another mistake ... --

Militia in the general sense is all those capable of bearing arms. Enrollment was an obligation of all, except conscientious objectors (Quakers, some clergy).

The condition of enrollment was akin to draft registration, which is different from having ones daily activities under direct command and control of a military officer.

Anyway, even though the two "militias" that you claim are disjoint entities are not disjoint entities, the obligation to be armed was less than the whole population. Women were not required to enroll, and certain age groups were outside of enrollment (children, elderly), as well as conscientious objectors.

That the public be armed was both, a resource from which the government could assemble a standing army; and a force that would resist an unjust government. It was and is also a resource to maintain public order even if an army is not assembled and there is absence of government tyranny, for example, to put down riots and insurrections.

Ping

1) Congress has 18 specific enumerated powers, none of which give it the power to pass mandates regarding Health care.

1A) The commerce clause, which is what congress used to pass this illegal monstrosity (one of those 18 powers I just mentioned), has NEVER ever been used to regulate INACTIVITY. Yes, wrap your noodle around that one for a moment... what does this statement mean? The commerce clause was written to regulate trade between the states and other countries. It was not written to regulate something which does not exist. It doesn’t have the legal power to regulate something that does not exist, namely the presence or lack there of a given person in the Health insurance market. Now if this stands, the government can literally tell you to go buy a handgun, or a GM car or that you must now buy 6000$ worth of Molybdenum a year because it’s for “the good of the Nation”. This is what it means when the government can tell you what you have to buy, it can tell you to go buy what ever it wants to. Are you ready for what THAT will entail under a conservative government Bruce? Whats the worst thing you can imagine being forced to buy from a conservative government and an openly Christian President? Exactly, this is what it means to open Pandora’s box!... See More

2) The majority of Americans do not support this legislation in the form it has been passed. http://tiny.cc/wwhgp Why? Because Americans are well aware it’s unconstitutional, and equally aware that the constitution can only protect us if we FORCE government to abide by it, this is what it means for the government to fear the people, what the founders intended in creating our Constitutional Republic. David is correct, we are not a democracy, democracies fail just as socialism does, for different reasons, but it doesn’t work either. Because at some point a majority will form which then gets busy screwing the minority. 55% of Americans support the repeal of this bill as is shown in the above link.

3) Does that say people don’t support health care reform? Not at all. As a point in fact, I support Health Care Reform. Do I support a singer payer system? F*** no I don’t, but the system DOES have a lot of areas that really need some attention. The reason I am vehemently against this legislation is because of its blatant violations of the constitution. The GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS RUNNING MEDICINE as a single payer system. None whatsoever. Not under our form of government, not with out a Constitutional Amendment giving it that power.

4) If this is so important to liberals, and is such a popular and greatly demanded thing, why not do it the RIGHT way, with a Constitutional Amendment? If the people want government provided “free” health care... why aren’t they doing it the right and LEGAL way with an Amendment? Simple, because they CAN’T. They do NOT have the support they claim to, and cannot muster the support of 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional Amendment, which means, the answer is NO.

5) If there is any one glaringly obvious fact that represents the true feelings of Americans, it is this: Liberals and single payer supporters cannot muster the support needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment to legally and constitutionally pass health care reform.

It DOES matter how we allow government to function, and it does matter when the government breaks the laws that limit it. Go just a bit further and you have no choice but to recognize that what makes us Americans isn’t where we live, the color of our skin, our heritage, or our social structure and society. It is the Constitution which makes us Americans, and with out its protections and LIMITATIONS on government, we are nothing more than slaves.

I refuse to be a slave to anything, including my fellow man. I am NOT my brother’s keeper, and I am not responsible for the poor. I want nothing to do with being a burden upon the rich either. I want no handouts, I do not EVER want to be dependent on the government for my health well being or a check. Once we hand to government the power to GIVE us health care, we become dependent on it, and that means we have to jump when the GOVERNMENT says jump at any time for any reason. Thats tyranny. It is for this reason that the Founders LIMITED government and congress as to what they can do. They recognized that once a person is made to be dependent on government for a check to go buy food with (or anything else, insert medicine or gas or electricity or what ever here), that person MUST follow the governments rules in order to keep getting that check. If you don’t believe me, go look up Austria and what happened after they (by 98%!!) overwhelmingly voted to annex themselves to Hitler’s Nazi Germany. It got unbelievably ugly and millions ended up dying. Can that happen here? You bet it can, if the people allow the document which protects them to be torn asunder by the very government that is limited by it. Austrians didn’t realize that the “assistance” of the Germans they voted for was going to have such horrific consequences. They were ignorant of what it meant to give up their freedom, which they willingly did. The cost of German “benefits” meant they had to do what they were told when they were told, and as history shows us so clearly today, that led to NO WHERE GOOD AT ALL!

Freedom isn’t free, even if that price is merely holding your own and refusing to bow down and cave in to slurs of racism, homophobia etc. It means DEMANDING that government abide by the constitution. It also means now that we must ROLL BACK the unconstitutional programs the government has in place. Are the socialist/progressive/liberals going to like that? I expect not. But they they aren’t interested in personal freedom, they are interested in the “free” handouts that in reality come with an impossibly high price tag.

If the people want health care run by and through the Government, then do a Constitutional Amendment. If that is too much trouble and can’t be done, then it SHOULD NOT BE DONE. That is the American way.

If you don’t like the constitution, try living in a nation without one. If you do not like the American system, then go about legally and legitimately attempting to change it. If you can’t live with it, then go to Europe, or some other nation that does have socialism, and enjoy. You have the freedom (ironic no?) to leave any time you like.

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative.

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and the subject of the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.

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.