Illegal for Senators to vote Yes on Obamacare

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
According to John Hammel of the International Advocacy for Health Freedom

Senators do not have the right to vote Yes to Obamacare and that in fact voting Yes is strictly Illegal. If they vote Yes they are directly violating their oath of office which they swore to uphold the Constitution.

Here is the full text of the newsletter. What do you think of this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't Let Unconstitutional Legislation Be Shoved Down Your Throat....John in the IAHF Office

Senators don't have the legal right to vote YES on Obamacare because its unconstitutional- see hard evidence in my constructive notice, below.

I just served this on both my Senators from Washington State to have standing to petition them for redress of grievances if they ignore it.

All anyone would need to do to modify this to send to their own senators is to excerpt the part from your State Constitution which you can find in 2 seconds via a search, all the rest of my text can be copied into your own message- be sure to remove my name at the end and insert your own name and address- demand a reply and send it right away, they're scheduled to vote on Health Care Reform at 1 AM tomorrow night (tuesday morning)- they got their 60 votes lined up now that they've bought Nelson's vote in a secret (undebated) deal by which Reid will steal money from the other 49 states to pay for an expansion of Medicare in Nebraska which Nebraskans will get for nothing. (DC Corruption as Usual.)

We don't have to take this- this legislation destroys alternative medicine and our access to dietary supplements via its effects (see
www.ymlp121.com...
we MUST assert our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Here is HOW- Please duplicate what I have done here, takes you 2 minutes- unless you also live in Washington State like I do, please just excerpt the same section from your states constitution to preface it, then copy the rest from mine- only put your name at the end.


CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON
www.leg.wa.gov...

ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.


TO: Senators Murray and Cantwell
Via Email Form on Your Websites

Dear Senators:

It is my understanding from the news reports that you are scheduled to vote in this Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefor, you must vote no or you will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");

Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 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.")

Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org...), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com...), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com...), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
www.legislature.mi.gov...

Article. IV.


Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN
www.legislature.mi.gov...

OF

1835

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Political power.

First. All political power is inherent in the people.

Right of the people.

2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.

Right to assemble and petition.

20. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

Acts void.

21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or any other article of this Constitution shall be void.

I require a DETAILED RESPONSE to this if you think I am in error in any way regarding this assertion. I demand a response.

(Put your name and address here.)

Email - jham@iahf.com

Website: www.iahf.com...

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA www.iahf.com... jham@iahf.com 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes a lot of since to me folks. What do you think?




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Will you marry me. This is great , and why I come here.

Im going to copy this and spread it around. Thanks for the time and effort for a great post.
star and flag



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Awesome find John S&F for you buddy lets stop this crapcare




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This is why i hate the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Etc...


They are way outdated and impossible ...

You want to apply these 200-year old nonsense to a world that not only does not need it / but also it's impossible to apply it ..



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


Is that you Barry?

newsmax.com...


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama’s statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”

The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America.


You think they are actually going to let an outdated and flawed constitution or any other old documents get in the way of their agendas?

Shut up, lay down and take it America.

You have no choice now.





posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
This is why i hate the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Etc...
They are way outdated and impossible ...
You want to apply these 200-year old nonsense to a world that not only does not need it / but also it's impossible to apply it ..



It is Not impossible to apply these. That is what THEY want people to think. Oh yes, We need these things. If these did not hold legal weight then why would corrupt politicians try so hard to get around them? You would have us dissolve these great principles this Great Nation was founded on?

You Sir are No kind of American.

EDIT:
Wow. People mark down the names of the people in this thread who tell us to ignore the constitution and lay down and take it.

These people are showing they are here to divide America. Do Not listen to them. It is clearly seen where they come from and what their agenda is.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Yes very true.
But when has that stopped any of them in the past?
Any and all gun legislation directly violates the constitution.. yet it is all voted for.
The war in Iraq?

None of it matters unless they are held to account.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessDespot
 


If we deny or give up the good fight then we are already defeated.

I Will Not Go Gentle into that good night. Rage rage against the dying of the light!

Rage brothers!

RAGE!



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The current legislation does not regulate medical practice but the application of insurance covering medical procedures. In legal terms, those are entirely two different entities.

Medicare is already a government insurance program. In fact it is very popular among many older conservative voters.
If you were to extend your legal argument to describe medical insurance as "direct control of medical practice," then Medicare also would be unconstitutional!

Hmmn, why the double standard with Medicare...? I forgot, it's popular with older republican voters.


[edit on 12/20/2009 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Oh I don't advocate denying or giving up on anything. I just don't see that anyone of us will effect any sort of legal consequences for the criminals in Washington.
Not until the bullets start flying anyways.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Utter nonsense.
Congress is regulating commerce. not medicine.
read your Constitution Obama haters, it's specifacly mentioned as a power of Congress.
The issue with healthcare reform is monetary. That's why the corrupt Repubs and Insurance companies care about it. Oh, and let's throw in some Democrats too! And Lieberman is bought and paid for by insurance.
I'd like to see this imbecile argue this in court. He'll do just as well as Orly
IT"S ALL ABOUT MONEY! IT"S ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY!


[edit on 20-12-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Forcing Americans to buy health insurance is quite far from constitutional.

Second line

And third...



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
Utter nonsense.
Congress is regulating commerce. not medicine.
read your Constitution Obama haters, it's specifacly mentioned as a power of Congress.
The issue with healthcare reform is monetary. That's why the corrupt Repubs and Insurance companies care about it. Oh, and let's throw in some Democrats too! And Lieberman is bought and paid for by insurance.
I'd like to see this imbecile argue this in court. He'll do just as well as Orly
IT"S ALL ABOUT MONEY! IT"S ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY!


[edit on 20-12-2009 by OldDragger]


That clause is so abused. It was even used to regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use.

Someone should fwd this post to Glenn Beck. Time to start using these media tards for our purposes instead of vice-versa. You may hate him. But being that healthcare is something he has been raging against he just might use it.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
OldDragger has a decent point about regulating commerce. There are some parts of the bill that are quite good. Some of the limitations placed on health care insurers are very common sense.
However if the public option makes it through and if the bits about fining and then jailing anyone who refuses to get health care insurance make it through then we will have yet another unconstitutional law.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Besides the fact that congress can only regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE which medicine is not.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine.

Not to mention they try and cite the interstate commerce clause to try and regulate cannabis in medical marijuana states when the fed govt still considers it illegal. Their claim that cannabis legalized by a state is affecting the price of cannabis in other states where it may or may not still be illegal.

OD's comment is completely indefensible.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Insurance companies ( corporations) are national entities.
Not some guy growing wheat.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by watcher73
 


Insurance companies ( corporations) are national entities.
Not some guy growing wheat.


Is that why you keep hearing how you cant go out of state to buy health insurance?

Growing wheat to feed your chickens is hardly interstate commerce either.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
Utter nonsense.
Congress is regulating commerce. not medicine.
read your Constitution Obama haters, it's specifacly mentioned as a power of Congress.
The issue with healthcare reform is monetary. That's why the corrupt Repubs and Insurance companies care about it. Oh, and let's throw in some Democrats too! And Lieberman is bought and paid for by insurance.
I'd like to see this imbecile argue this in court. He'll do just as well as Orly
IT"S ALL ABOUT MONEY! IT"S ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY!


[edit on 20-12-2009 by OldDragger]


Well Of Course it's about the Money. The can't come out and say they want to control what medicines we take and how we get them. But, you have to be able to see where that control of health care in a monetary way will directly lead to their ability to control how we get medicines and what medicines we will be allowed to take.

Anyone who does not see this has not realized that these are the same guerrilla tactics that governments, and corporations have used time and time again for ages.

They seek to confuse the issue by talking about insurance and the state the nation is in financially - why they say we need this - but to give Government these much broad powers is to relinquish our say in our own health care.

Of course it's always about the money. The Money is the means they use to their own ends. If you can control the flow of the money, you can control every aspect of the enterprise that money is used for.

People, don't let double talk like the above sway you into thinking there is no threat here. Just the fact that it caused Government to get bigger is in itself a major threat to democracy and the American way of life.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Polynomial C
This is why i hate the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Etc...


They are way outdated and impossible ...

You want to apply these 200-year old nonsense to a world that not only does not need it / but also it's impossible to apply it ..



You have probably never even studied it or you are have studied and you think the new progressive way is the bees kness. Well let me tell ya something I cant wait for you paper a**, talk out of the side of your mouth,never had a solid father figure children try and take it away. You are in for the surprise of your life I would love to see a army of weak minded fools you will eat each other.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");


Nevermind the fact that this particular case was of a doctor prescribing coc aine to addicts, which would later be outlawed as a controlled substance. Nowhere in the current legislation does it say what a doctor can and cannot prescirbe, try again...


Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 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.")


This actually references the previous action. This was in regards to a doctor prescribing alcohol during the prohibition...doctor prescription, once again, not in the current legislation, trying again...


Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org...), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);


The US supreme court once again referenced Linder v. US in this case as well, saying the GOV cannot say what a doctor can and cannot prescribe, moving on...


Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com...), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")


This case was against a doctor who had his license suspended in D.C. while practicing medicine in New York. I don't know exactly what angle you're going for here...other than misrepresenting a quote. Last one...


And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com...), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens..."


I'm assuming this is in reference to the tax on cosmetic surgeries and tanning beds? This particular case was in reference to the taxation of illegal alcohol sales in certain states after prohibition. It was decided that the federal government cannot exact a tax on alcohol if the alcohol being sold is illegal in said state. Cosmetic surgery is not illegal in any state, nor are tanning beds.

Do you have anything else I can google for you?

Edit: Missed a quotation box.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by links234]





new topics
 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join