US Legislatures meet the US constitution

SEYMORE grab the guns and play the music, were starting stuff!!!!!



Owing to my nature of being a Superiorist and believing I see where this is going I will attempt to make an educated guess on what the states have in their legal arsenals.

If you are reading this I suggest some people go diggin through the SCOTUS rulings.

Article one

Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The Article provides that Congress consists of a House of Representatives and the Senate, establishes the manner of election and qualifications of members of each House, and outlines legislative procedure and enumerates the powers vested in the legislative branch. Finally, it establishes limits on the powers of both Congress and the states.

If I miss anything fell free to correct

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. ”

They do have the the authority to pass legislation. Not good so far for the home teams.

IT get worse for the home team

I followed the link

In United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else

I am not liking this one bit. The case law agrees. They cant put it to the states due to the fact by law they cant delegate it. I smell a defense forming, and it is a heavy one.

Back to the US constitution article one

section 2

Section Two provides for the election of the House of Representatives every second year. Since Representatives are to be "chosen . . . by the People," State Governors are not allowed to appoint temporary replacements when vacancies occur in a state's delegation to the House of Representatives; instead, the Governor of the state is required by clause 4 to issue a writ of election calling a special election to fill the vacancy.

If they get recalled new elections

Clause 4: Vacancies “ When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. ” Section 2, Clause 4, provides that when vacancies occur in the House of Representatives, it is not the job of the House of Representatives to arrange for a replacement, but the job of the State whose vacant seat is up for refilling. Moreover, the State Governor may not appoint a temporary replacement, but must instead arrange for a special election to fill the vacancy. The original qualifications and procedures for holding that election are still valid.

Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment “ The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ”

crap... so they have to be recalled if possible????

Section Three provides that each state is entitled to two Senators chosen for a term of six years. The state legislatures originally chose the Senators. This provision has been superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators by the respective states' voters.

17th admendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

more

The Seventeenth Amendment does not affect the restriction in Article I, § 4, cl. 1, which prohibits the Congress from exercising a power to "make or alter" state regulations of elections in order to determine where Senators must be chosen. When the state legislatures chose the Senators, allowing the Congress to regulate the "places of choosing Senators" would have allowed the Congress to essentially stipulate where each state's legislature had to meet, at least for the purposes of choosing its Senators, which would have been inconsistent with state sovereignty.

So if I savy correctly if the states where to steamroll through their congresses say an act allowing for the recall of senators via a recall vote, then allow the governor to appoint new ones due to the emergency, they could do it.

:roll

Not that I would encourage it!!!!!

Well I am running out of room so I will be posting more next.

So far

The legislative branch has the authority to do what it has done.

The state government can control recall of US senators.

BLAH Blah blah

here we go

Article one, clause six

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Crapola they can only get rid of themselves in the senate for impeachment.

Might not be able to recall.... I wonder is the definition of recall by the citizens different then impeachment???

Section 4: Congressional elections [edit]Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

out the window with recall

Because Congress has not enacted any on-point regulations, States still retain the authority to regulate the dates on which other aspects of the election process are held (registration, primary elections, etc.) and where elections will be held. As for regulating the "manner" of elections, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean "matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns."[47] The Supreme Court has held that States may not exercise their power to determine the "manner" of holding elections to impose term limits on their congressional delegation.[28]

This means they cant be recalled by state elections. This leaves the FEDs ahead in the score....

so far it gets worse, but i am attempting to be honest.

Section 8: Powers of Congress [edit]Enumerated powers Main article: Enumerated powers Congress' powers are enumerated in Section Eight: Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

they again have the authority to do what they have done. I am getting frustrated. So far I have not left the first article and thier authority is legit to do what has been done.

I am going to keep going.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Its over... I am going to take a break after this note. The states do not have a leg to stand on.

Commerce Clause

In its decision, the Court assumed interstate commerce required movement of the subject of regulation across state borders. The decision contains the following principles, some of which have since been altered by subsequent decisions: 1. Commerce is "intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." 2. Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one." 3. The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" which "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution."

When examining whether some activity was considered "Commerce" under the Constitution, the Court would aggregate the total effect the activity would have on actual economic commerce. Intrastate activities could fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if those activities would have any rational effect on Interstate Commerce. Finally, in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court said the 10th Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.[citation needed]

The Lopez decision was clarified in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which the Supreme Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The VAWA created civil liability for the commission of a gender-based violent crime, but without any jurisdictional requirement of a connection to Interstate Commerce or commercial activity. 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). Once again, the Court was presented with a Congressional attempt to criminalize traditional local criminal conduct. As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate impacts of local violence. The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an " 'express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.' " Id. at 1751. In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce. The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.

From the looks of things it will come done to sovereign immunity vs the commerce clause. So far to date congress has the authority to regulate health care.

I am going to take a break. So far the feds win

The opinion pointed out that prior decisions had identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).

Health Care is an interstate business...

I am falling asleep and will continue later....

I am at section ten limit on the states....

So far the american people will have to wait till election day to be heard. Unless the president refuses to sign it and vetos it

reply to post by ripcontrol


Whoever made this is amazing! OMG It's funny and so serious, Well done. I love it!

Shush, Seymore is drunk and passed out.... He has good reason keep reading...



of note I will have to refer back later on to the options available. its in the powers of congress and deals with local militia.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

its a stray thought and I do not want to forget it.

Now back to business

Article one

We are going back a step... found a small hope for the States

Section 9: Limits on Congress

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Modern practice is that Congress annually passes a number of appropriation bills authorizing the expenditure of public money. The Constitution requires that a regular statement of such expenditures be published

The small hope... The state treasurers demand an exact receipt of every penny from the money sent from their states.

Thats right I demand an EXACT accounting.

State treasurers on behalf of their states citizens, The accounting is not exact please account for ALL of it.

Section Ten

Clause 3: Compact Clause “ No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There have been a number of Supreme Court cases, especially Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), concerning what constitutes valid congressional consent to an interstate compact. The Court found that some agreements among states stand even without Congress’s consent. According to the Court, the Compact Clause requires congressional consent only if the agreement among the states is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."[60]

They may actually have the states on this violation when they file a class action.

It would be wise to have a referendum where they states are authorized by the people in this case to file the suit on their behalf.

Article Two

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

This will never happen but....

Clause 4: Caring for the faithful execution of the law The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

In Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In the case, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "the Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance." Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.

So guess what they cant do a thing until after it is in effect. From the looks of it they may even be able to buy time until it all becomes law....

#3- article SCOTUS

Hardball time...

Section 1: Federal courts Section 1 vests the judicial power in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges. Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

It appears should SCOTUS not be playing ball congress can remove them.

They have the authority to create a court!!!

In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.[1] (1856), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts.

Sounds dicey on hardball if the courts can hear it. They can but they can be gone around. The creation of a court to handle the cases between the states and the federal government can be established....

Tenure The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[2] George W. English,[3] and Samuel B. Kent[4] resigned rather than go through the impeachment process.

Or outright removal.... Note the senate has the authority to remove the judges via impeachment..

On to next post

The authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce would require the Congress to abolish State regulation of the insurance industry and allow operation across state lines. The commerce clause also does not give authority to Congress to madate the purchase of a private product and I believe that has been stricken down before. The Necessary and proper clause (which is currently the play on the progressive side) does not give authority to use legislation for congress to do what they think is necessary and proper, but to legislate for a problem that they have authority over(Necessary) and to do it within the confines of the Constitution(Proper).

The states are suing under the tenth amendment. The states must be able to prove damage before tey can have standing, once tey acheive standing theycan challenge this law under what I listed above.

As for the other stuff regarding the courts, if the current congress attempts to nullify te court there will be a bloody revolution in this country.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by projectvxn]

Good Seymore is still asleep...

They US Legislature is winning greatly

They have the complete authority to do it

Commerce clause-

Should SCOTUS not playball they can take them out too... We might get to see..

ALL HAIL CAESAR PELOSI

Section 2: Federal jurisdiction and trial by jury Section 2 specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Whats very important...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

DO you get what this says. Do I need to wake Seymore up?....

Thats right the new Caesar can have this made an exception... And they have to accept it!!!!

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdiction extends to:

It already exist.... But a new one could still be ordered created...

Federal party jurisdiction: cases in which the United States is a party

State jurisdiction: cases between two or more states

It hits the eleventh Amendment But I will come to that later....

Case or Controversy Clause

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It gets worse for the states.... Much worse

The most famous case setting forth the parameters of this requirement is Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), in which the Court held that when Congress paid the legal bills for both the plaintiffs and the defendant (in this case the U.S. Treasury department, by designation), then there was no real controversy between the parties, and a judgment of the Court would be the equivalent of an advisory opinion.

You catch that... The tax Payers are footing both bills... It is looking worse and worse for the states chances....

Original and appellate jurisdiction See also: Jurisdiction stripping Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and controversies in which a state is a party. In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to such "Regulations as the Congress shall make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised, except to refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to allow the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject a case.

I see a rat...

Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record).

I am running out of room again well Seymore is up now...

Continued....
Original jurisditcion

United States Courts that would have original jurisdiction in a case include county and circuit courts, federal district courts, and special courts and tribunals such as traffic court, family court, United States Bankruptcy Court, United States Tax Court, and quasi-judicial bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission. There are three types of courts of original jurisdiction: courts not of record, such as justice of the peace courts, and courts of general jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Courts not of record keep no permanent records of proceeding, making appeals almost impossible. Courts of general jurisdiction are also known as trial courts. The Supreme Court of the United States generally has appellate jurisdiction over its cases; i.e., cases are appealed through the judicial system until they reach the Court, most commonly through writs of certiorari. However, in a limited class of cases, the Court has original jurisdiction to consider the facts and the law of a case without it having first been passed on by a lower court. Currently, the only original jurisdiction cases commonly handled by the Supreme Court are disputes between two or more U.S. states, typically regarding boundary lines, water claims, or other property issues. Federal courts are granted original jurisdiction in cases involving interpretations of United States laws, maritime law, cases involving citizens of different states, cases between ambassadors and representatives of foreign nations, cases between state governments, and cases in which the United States is a party.

With this stated to date I want to cover everything...

The Congress DOES have the authority to do what it has done...

Jurisdiction is the issue of the day so far....

Federal court or SCOTUS hears the case... I believe it is SCOTUS...
The US is named as a Party...

As for the Commerce clause... It clearly states that the have the authority to oversee and regulate commerce.

As to what I have covered so far..

During a redig found this...

Article one: section five

Clause 3: Record of proceedings “ Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. ” Each House must keep and publish a Journal, though it may choose to keep any part of the Journal secret. The decisions of the House—not the words spoken during debates—are recorded in the Journal; if one-fifth of those present (assuming a quorum is present) request it, the votes of the members on a particular question must also be entered.

It is off topic but.... The record can be made to reflect the ones who voted for it.. The reason it is important is that the states need to name all of the Ones who voted in favor of it as defendant in their official and private capacities...

Back to where I was at..

The states can demand an exact receipt.

What the states have not done...This will bite them... In common law a precedent exist. I cant have you arrested for trespassing if I have never notified you or the cops about me not wanting you on my property. I must first Trespass you then have you served or notified of it.

So far to my knowledge no State has specifically reserved the right to decide this issue nor have any citizen reserved said right....

The federal government in the form of the Senate has all legal authority to decide said issue.... I will cover next article four I believe I am on next. After I have gone through all of it I will write an open letter to the 39 governors with my advice based as a layman on what I have read for this..

Seymore's crying because so far the writing is clearly on the wall. It appears that we have been screwed not just by the Present ones but they can point to the founding fathers... Maybe L Neil Smith was right... Shay should have dragged them behind a building and shot some of the founding fathers.

Seymore relax... I have an evil plan forming and I will share it but let me get through this..

Article IV

Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. The article outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states. Article Four also provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries.

A small hope but do NOT wager on it

Section 4: Obligations of the United States [edit]Clause 1: Republican government “ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ”

heres why

In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court rejected the notion that the republican character of states lay within the purview of judicial review, holding that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character.” In effect, the court held the clause to be non-justiciable.

With the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the power of the federal government to safeguard these rights was added to the Constitution, and this interpretation of Section Four became moot. When the Supreme Court revisited some of the territory covered by Luther v. Borden in cases like Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause was the basis of its changed decisions.

The guarantee of a republican government has been asserted by many advocates to prohibit the use of direct democracy procedures in the states. The use of the initiative, referendum, and recall are all tools of "direct democracy," that allow the electorate to exercise legislative power independently from their republican representatives. The Supreme Court faced a challenge to the use of statewide initiatives in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912). In that case, the Court held that challenges to a state's republican character are non-justiciable political questions, and that the decision of whether a state is "republican" in conformance with the guarantee clause may be decided only by Congress. This doctrine remains valid today. Each time Congress accepts members to the House and Senate, Congress is implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy and republican nature of the state from which the representatives were elected.

I would hold the reverse is true and by sending the Reps you as a state acknowledged the US as republican nature..

A small issue but it might work... LOOONGSHOOOOOT

Article V

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

ALL OPPOSED TO THE PRESENT HCR bill PAT CLOSE ATTENTION...

This is the rock upon which a successful campaign to stop it may be mounted... And neither the Congress nor SCOTUS can over turn it..

If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. This provision, many scholars argue, allows for a check on the power of the Congress to limit potential constitutional amendments. In fact, several proponents of constitutional revision, such as Larry J. Sabato in his book A More Perfect Constitution believe this is the only feasible way for large-scale constitutional change to occur.

let me see..two thirds of 51 (DC COUNT?)

37.5 states 39 suing you do the math...

Now you have to pick your shots... I will cover more a little later in my letter....

Aricle VI

Article Six establishes the United States Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids religion as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

This is as close as you will get on it...

Now to the applicable amendments...

All right Seymores on board...

Amendments

To which ones might apply

IV amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it. In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.

This might apply due to privacy concerns. Who after all is going to review the cases and how is the medical information protected under HIPPA

HIPPA wiki

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191) [HIPAA] was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996. It was originally sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.). According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website, Title I of HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs. Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers. This is intended to help people keep their information private, though in practice it is normal for providers and health insurance plans to require the waiver of HIPAA right as a condition of service.

Who is gonna have access to your medical records?

IX Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Now we get to my earlier argument in the first part.

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this, in U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail." Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

It has NOT been made clear that no granting of power on this issue has been allowed. Not a single one of the states has sent notification to the various departs affected in the federal government reserving this right to the people of their state.

Gun rights activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the Second Amendment protects only a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.[14] In the related case of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court held that while Congress has broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it is not unlimited, and does not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns.

All right Lopez keeps coming up.

US vs Lopez

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[11]

its gonna be close

Dissenting

Justice Breyer authored the principal dissenting opinion.[16] He applied three principles that he considered basic: The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those "significantly affect" interstate commerce. In considering the question, a court must consider not only the individual act being regulated (i.e. a single case of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e. the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools). A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a "rational basis" for so concluding.[17]

next post hits the big X

Are you ready dear readers?

Seymore some music Dedicated to Pelosi





X amendment

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Drumroll

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes this is what the hoopla is over.

first reference in article
US vs Sprague

Back to wiki

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows: The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

wiki- US vs Darby lumber co

The issue At issue was whether the Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in creating the Fair Labor Standards Act. An American lumber company in Georgia that did not meet these standards was charged with violating the law, but had won an appeal, where the appellate judge found that the federal government is barred by the 10th Amendment from interfering in matters that are strictly local, that is, within intrastate boundaries. The Act also required the keeping of records to verify compliance; the appellee argued that this violated his 5th Amendment right protecting him from self-incrimination.

The lumber company lost !

It looks like a slam dunk....

It might be more beneficial to look at the cases the government lost

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

Of note in this example the state executive was forced to participate. My understanding is that the IRS will be administering the fines and the punishments.

The technicality might be in the enforcement. For you geniuses celebrating PELOSI's victory remember this. The IRS will attach it to your tax returns as a owed debt. If you cant pay they have the authority to seize assets. So for not paying they can take your car and your house.

At least I will have some money. Seymore remind me to get their names so I can keep an eye on them. When they lose their stuff I want to go to the IRS auctions in their areas.



Ok seymore, Ill quit and go back to the subject

Its over ladies and gentlemen But I will keep going... Here how the states will lose on the matter.

Commerce clause According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.

Commerce Legal definition

COMMERCE The exchange of commodities for commodities. Considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts and for which he pays a consideration. If the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. The U.S. Congress has power by the Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes. The sense in which the word commerce is used in the Constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation.

?????? Seymore says no bad jokes on the last sentence. Does this mean a married man acts as a john


Wickard vs Filburn

Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Well I will go into another post...

Edited due to multiple insults and use of foul language...

All stand for Caesar Pelosi,



****Kent is off chasing women, he left me to type****

I suggest my fellow americans we go find this mountain person

Kents off chasing women so I will finish this

Hello I am Seymore and I believe my standard is





Well lets recover some ground...

The tenth amendment in our opinion does not exclude health care for the following reasons....

1) Via the definition of commerce- health care falls under the commerce clause quite clearly

2)Via the IRS
They are not part of the state government but the federal.

Its legal due to the present articles mentioned earlier in the thread... Its the power to give executive branch office to enforce rules...

They bypasse the X Amendment by expanding the Authority of the IRS to enforce it.

3)Unless at any time the DIRECTLY attempt to use the Executive office of states to enforce the law they did it.

4) The overreach by an earlier congress to enforce in school zones and weapons. Applies only if they try to say it is for the helping of society and long term financial health of society.

Translating........ They stick to the script its commerce we have the power via the constitution


We had already covered the Garcia case... Its a none issue....

*********************************

This was told to me so I am providing only a rumor here

That a portion of the bill will enable them to deny gun ownership. They will be able to deny you the federal coverage because you own a gun.

You say I am making it up. Prove it is not anywhere in the bill or amendments to the bill.

Back to the thread*****

Ok.... So we all understand. It is not illegal until the Sheriff officer is made to accompany the IRS agent for the arrest or seizure.

Even at this point it may be legal because they are registered federal peace officers to my understanding.

Now to the XI amendment

XI amendment

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country. This amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity in the United States is the legal privilege by which the American federal and state governments cannot be sued.

Yep...immunity

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

now go back to the Sovereign immunity

go state sovereignty part...

just read your gonna hate the next part.
Congressional power of enforcement

A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The variations in the pertinent language are as follows: the Thirteenth Amendment leaves out the word "the", the Fourteenth Amendment states "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and the Eighteenth Amendment states "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Well its locking down tighter and tighter.... Cae(t)sar Pelosi gets the W so far... You have to have their permission to sue them.