Veil Of Politics
The Supreme Court said Monday it will take up challenges to President Obama’s health care law next year, setting the stage for a ruling on the president’s trademark achievement amidst his bid for re-election.
Out of multiple lawsuits filed against the Affordable Care Act, (sic) the justices chose a case brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) challenging the law’s individual mandate that requires Americans to purchase health insurance and its dramatic expansion of Medicaid.
In 2005, one State made a law that the federal government opposed and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. But this State simply ignored the Supreme Court edict because there was so much public support in favor of the State law.
Public opinion and support make it easier to resist federal tyranny.
“If the federales rule this [Obamacare] is unconstitutional, it’s good,” Boldin said. “But it has not solved the essential question … the most important question in any society, is when the federal government violates the Constitution, what do we do about it?
“Do we wait for the Supreme Court to tell us to be free?” he said. “These nine unelected lawyers are not the determination of what the Constitution is. We the people are.”
President Andrew Jackson’s opinion of the Supreme Court and its power:
“‘The Supreme Court has their opinion. Now let them come and enforce it.”
Seven states have introduced acts to nullify the federal health-care reform – including New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming. A similar proposal is expected to be filed in Idaho within a matter of days.
Obama’s Last Stand: Montana Senate Disapproves Of Vladimir Lenin’s Archway To Socialism: Mandates Lawsuit Against Centralized Austerity Obamacare.
It’s another, and very important, field on which States can battle federal demands of their citizens.
In Texas, the legislation is being led by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler.
The measure would not only nullify the federal requirements, but would include penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail, for anyone guilty of the “felony” of attempting “to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation” of Obamacare.
The bill says the federal act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.
It provides that “a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter.” Republic States Tell feds To Back Down On Obamacare ~ Threatened With 5 Years Jail Time, For Anyone Attempting To Enforce Obamacare.
On June 27th, 1997, in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.
He quotes President Madison again: “In The compound Republic Of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922)
No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.
Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.
To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants to the federal government.
The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution grants the “general authority,” Madison’s term for the federal government, against….
…..The Vast Residual Powers Of The States.
Each sphere of government, state and federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.
Madison says this:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” Loc. Cit.
The Supreme Court’s announcement Monday that it will hear challenges to President Obama’s health care law have put the spotlight on Justice Elena Kagan, who worked in the administration while the law was being written and, conservatives argue, helped craft its legal defense.
“Before the Supreme Court case is heard we need to know if Justice Elena Kagan helped the Obama Administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was solicitor general. The Justice Departmentmust answer serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest which would demand that she recuse herself from the Obamacare case,” said Rep. John Fleming, Louisiana Republican.
At the same time, liberal groups and Democrats in Congress have been pushing for months for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, citing his wife’s work with a group that opposes the health care law as an indication he cannot rule impartially.
At stake in the case is the fate of the president’s massive health care overhaul, which passed Congress on the strength of Democratic votes last year and has seen a checkered record in lower courts.
The case will likely be argued next spring, and a recusal — if it does come — could happen any time.
“The best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
– Vladimir Lenin