Nullify the Flawed Individual Mandate Decision

After once again ignoring and violating the separation of power between the States and the federal government, the United States Supreme Court added insult to injury by perverting the taxing clause of the Constitution to sustain the federal government’s unconstitutional intrusions into private healthcare. Republicans responded by stating they will repeal the individual mandate if they win the November elections. If republicans win and decide to follow through with their so-called promise, I have a simple way for them to negate the individual mandate and nullify the Court’s decision.

When Congress wrote and passed the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate provision in section 5000A(b) (1) was clearly written as a penalty, not a tax. Justice Robert’s acknowledged this fact several times in the Court’s opinion:

“The Affordable Care Act describes the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’”

“It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’”

The majority on the Court took it upon themselves to assume the role of Congress and unconstitutionally re-write the statute and transform a penalty into a tax. Apparently, the Court thought Congress was too stupid to know the difference between a tax and a penalty when it wrote the statute. A review of the Act shows Congress knows the difference.


Don’t forget to Celebrate July 6th.

On July 6th, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted: A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. The following was written by Thomas Jefferson: “We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to…


Happy Bill of Restraints Day!

With the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights upon us, a majority of the American people still do not understand the true intent of the Amendments. They believe the Amendments are the source of their individual rights and the federal government was granted the general power to secure those rights. In reality, the Amendments did not create any individual rights or grant the federal government any general power.

When the “Bill of Rights” was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it contained 12 proposed amendments and was prefaced with a preamble that spelled out the intent of the Amendments. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted (2 were rejected 10 were agreed to), would not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any general power; they would place additional restraints and/or qualifications on federal power concerning the rights enumerated therein.

The best way to explain the intent of the Amendments was to re-write them through the preamble. This re-write helps explain the original intent of the Amendments, without resorting to the preamble, and makes them easier to understand. Some words have been changed to reflect modern usage and the sentence structure has been slightly altered in a few of the Amendments. The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.


All Powers not Delegated are Reserved

From Chapter IX of Abel Upshur’s “A brief enquiry into the true nature and character of our federal government: being a review of Judge Story’s commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

In the first place, the Constitution of the United States is not a frame of government to which there is but one party. The States are parties, each stipulating and agreeing with each and all the rest. Their agreement is, that a certain portion of that power which each is authorized to exercise within its own limits shall be exercised by their common agent, within the limits of all of them. This is not the separate power of each, but the joint power of all. In proportion, therefore, as you increase the powers of the Federal Government, you necessarily detract from the separate powers of the States. We are not to presume that a sovereign people mean to surrender any of their powers; still less should we presume that they mean to surrender them, to be exerted over themselves by a different sovereignty. In this respect, then, every reasonable implication is against the Federal Government.

In the second place, the Constitution of the United States is not the primary social relation of those who formed it. The State governments were already organized, and were adequate to all the purposes of their municipal concerns. The Federal Government was established only for such purposes as the State government could not answer, to wit: the common purposes of all the States. Whether, therefore, the powers of that government be greater or less, the whole power of the States, (or so much thereof as they design to exercise at all), is represented, either in the Federal Government or in their own. In this respect, therefore, there is no necessity to imply power in the Federal Government.

In the third place, whatever power the States have not delegated to the Federal Government, they have reserved to themselves. Every useful faculty of government is found either in the one or the other. Whatever the Federal Government cannot do for all the States, each State can do for itself, subject only to the restraints of its own constitution. No power, therefore, is dormant and useless, except so far only as the States voluntarily decline to exert it. In this respect, also, there is no necessity to imply power in the Federal Government.


The Bill of Rights Broken-Down into Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses

The preamble to the document known as the Bill of Rights states that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended.

If the Amendments are broken-down into this declaratory and restrictive clause format, they read as follows:


The Power to Impose Income Taxes?

Constitutionally, the controversy that resulted in the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment had nothing to do with the federal government’s power to impose so-called “income taxes.”  The issue was a class of tax controversy―not a power to tax controversy. In order to understand this issue, it is important to review the taxing clauses of the…