Illegal for Senators to vote Yes on Obamacare, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times
Topic started on 20-12-2009 @ 07:43 PM by JohnPhoenix
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?


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 08:54 PM by Walkswithfish
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.





reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 08:56 PM by RelentlessDespot
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.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 09:05 PM by JohnPhoenix
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!


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 09:31 PM by RelentlessDespot
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.


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 10:48 PM by OldDragger
reply to post by watcher73


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


reply posted on 20-12-2009 @ 10:50 PM by watcher73
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.


reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 12:18 AM by JohnPhoenix
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.


reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 01:36 AM by links234
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]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags
Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags