The US Supreme Court has proven once again that it has no interest in upholding the US Constitution.
PPACA is absolutely and completely unconstitutional and should have been struck down in its entirety. Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to save it by accepting the government’s argument that the mandate could be viewed as a tax. In essence, this “law” was rewritten by the court to ensure its survival.
This tax/penalty applies to a certain class of people who by choice go without health insurance. It is enforced by the IRS, and don’t worry, it’s not really a large amount of money anyway. Gee, thanks. Roberts’ opinion (p. 32 of the Court document) states, “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one… As we have explained, ‘every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality’.”
Those who put their hopes in the federal supreme court to rescue them from the federal government are probably still in shock, but should have expected this outcome by now. The biggest mistake today is the assumption that the US Supreme Court has the final say on what’s constitutional, and the states must just sit there and take it. Not so.
As our friend Marty Babitz explained:
“We are playing the wrong game with the wrong chips, based on the erroneous concept that the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, is the exclusive arbiter of the Constitution and the scope of the powers it delegates to the federal government… We must topple this fiction, so deeply ingrained in the legal profession, our history books, and the collective mind of We the People, that Marbury v. Madison vested supremacy over the Constitution in the Supreme Court, when in reality it merely repeated the same principle declared five years earlier in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: an unconstitutional law, action or ruling of the federal government is null and void, and the duty of every state governor, legislature, and court, under the oath they have taken to support the Constitution, is to so nullify it.”
Among other founders and framers, Thomas Jefferson also made it perfectly clear that the federal government was not to be its own judge, but that the states reserved judgement of the constitutionality of federal acts:
“…that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force… That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.”
“…that the several states who formed that instrument, [the Constitution] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy….”
It is time now for each state to take a stand of noncompliance with this unconstitutional federal act. In doing so, the states themselves will be upholding the Constitution they ratified so long ago. We in New Jersey are fortunate to have one member of the Assembly who has introduced such legislation. Assemblywoman Alison McHose (R- Sussex) submitted a bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act in New Jersey. A861 declares the entire Act null and void within the state of New Jersey. The bill itself provides the rationale for nullification, based on the Tenth Amendment.
Brenda Poland [send her email] is the state chapter coordinator for the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Relying exclusively on the Supreme Court to adjudicate Constitutional issues is pure foolishness. They are, after all, lawyers employed by the Federal government. Therefore, in any dispute between the States and the Federal government, they are are a party on one side. Therefore, they cannot be considered impartial in any way. As Thomas Jefferson stated in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, "... in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
BTW, I used a lot of the resources available on this site for my exposition on my blog, http://turophiles2cents.wordpress.com/constitutional-government/
@TenthAmendment O Now OWNS OC TAX! FIRE HIM Nov 6th! Dump 100% Dems & RINOs 4 Citizen Legislators 4 US Constitution! RT Daily Until Election