II is submitting not merely one, but two separate brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Obamacare. One will show why the mandate that individuals buy government-approved insurance is unconstitutional. The other shows that Obamacare’s Medicaid mandates inposed on states also are unconstitutional.
Both briefs are based on a powerful blend of the Constitution’s original meaning and modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
I’ll post on the individual mandate brief later. The Medicaid brief, to be filed in just a few days, addresses a part of Obamacare overshadowed by the individual mandate—but just as damaging to our federal republic, and just as clearly unconstitutional.
Obamacare requires all states to greatly expand government health care within their states or lose ALL Medicaid funding—or at least a portion thereof to be set by the unguided discretion of the bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services. Since federal Medicaid funds are a huge portion of all states’ budgets, the effect is to subordinate state fiscal policy to the whim of federal officials. This is clearly unconstitutional.
Here is what the brief demonstrates:
(1) The Constitution splits sovereignty between federal government (as to enumerated purposes) and state governments (as to all other purposes). This was recognized by the Founders, and is also recognized by the modern Supreme Court.
(2) An unseverable attribute of sovereignty is a concept called “independence.” This also was acknowledged by the Founders and is accepted today by the Supreme Court.
(3) State “independence” in this context means power to make uncoerced, free decisions, based on the desires of the people within those states. Again, this is part of both the Founding-Era record and of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
(4) Thus, Supreme Court protects states from federal bullying. In accordance with the lessons from the ratification debates over the Constitution, the Court has been particularly protective of the states’ financial independence.
(5) The Obamacare Medicaid mandates are FAR more coercive than any federal conditions previously upheld. Indeed, they are more coercive than some federal mandates struck down.
(6) Several factors aggravate these mandates: (a) The Founders EXPRESSLY documented the field of social services as reserved to the states, free of federal meddling, (b) the sheer size of the punishment for any state that does not knuckle under, (c) Congress’s “in your face” violation of rules previously announced by the Supreme Court, and (d) Obamacare’s grant to unelected federal bureaucrats of uncontrolled power to punish states they don’t like.
I’ll post this brief as soon as it is filed.
Rob,
This is a great brief but I think I have located something. One, the supreme court is not the supreme deciding. This is because each holds such a value under Rule of law or natures law. I have found the wording of the legalize to be the weakness of our case and not the strengths.
The Constitution splits the life created between Federal Government and the life of state Governments. This needs to be very clear because as used as sovereignty it is looked as the person so one person to another, in life in means the total life of the entity as Federal and the total life of as state. This means all life in each entity is considered. In the person sense it is only the body represented as a person. Since Rule of law is based upon natural law of the Laws of life in its natural settings bares far more weight because all life within the entity is now considered and now The Declaration of Independence becomes the deciding force or factor of the two.
No body may plead emperor where in other life exist since all become their very own emperor or authority over there own acts as well their own protections. What I found in this made up law is that it is done by authoritative law which is made up in the minds of men and has no real basis for which to decide life’s course.
Keep in mind Sovereignty comes from where the legal establishment to define the entity as the person? So in the true sense of the word “independence would be Life free of dominance from other life” this is what Liberty stands for and allows life to do the acts it does natural.
Is the supreme court the supreme choice by life or by authoritative law? Is this natural law? What does life tell you? This law is so authoritative in Corporate legalize and is where I spotted this because it shows authority by a few and not the life of the entity of an organization. Dominance is huge in Corporations and when I looked at the difference between Corporate and Federal Government under the man made laws I could see no difference, thus the Republic is being dominated by a few who swear themselves authorized over what life has to offer. This became preposterous when I view myself in a mirror and realize I am of my own authority. When I took this view and looked at others I saw nothing different. So I asked myself how could another authorize something that goes against the rule of law?
Please consider my statements and you may ask me questions if you need assistance. I am not a legal expert, I am a life expert of self study and sustainability practices for all such life.
Genuinely,
William Schooler
Rob,
This is a great brief but I think I have located something. One, the supreme court is not the supreme deciding. This is because each holds such a value under Rule of law or natures law. I have found the wording of the legalize to be the weakness of our case and not the strengths.
The Constitution splits the life created between Federal Government and the life of state Governments. This needs to be very clear because as used as sovereignty it is looked as the person so one person to another, in life in means the total life of the entity as Federal and the total life of as state. This means all life in each entity is considered. In the person sense it is only the body represented as a person. Since Rule of law is based upon natural law of the Laws of life in its natural settings bares far more weight because all life within the entity is now considered and now The Declaration of Independence becomes the deciding force or factor of the two.
No body may plead emperor where in other life exist since all become their very own emperor or authority over there own acts as well their own protections. What I found in this made up law is that it is done by authoritative law which is made up in the minds of men and has no real basis for which to decide life’s course.
Keep in mind Sovereignty comes from where the legal establishment to define the entity as the person? So in the true sense of the word “independence would be Life free of dominance from other life” this is what Liberty stands for and allows life to do the acts it does natural.
Is the supreme court the supreme choice by life or by authoritative law? Is this natural law? What does life tell you? This law is so authoritative in Corporate legalize and is where I spotted this because it shows authority by a few and not the life of the entity of an organization. Dominance is huge in Corporations and when I looked at the difference between Corporate and Federal Government under the man made laws I could see no difference, thus the Republic is being dominated by a few who swear themselves authorized over what life has to offer. This became preposterous when I view myself in a mirror and realize I am of my own authority. When I took this view and looked at others I saw nothing different. So I asked myself how could another authorize something that goes against the rule of law?
Please consider my statements and you may ask me questions if you need assistance. I am not a legal expert, I am a life expert of self study and sustainability practices for all such life.
Genuinely,
William Schooler