Supreme Court's Obamacare decision is unconstitutional

The Act entitled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) Public Law 111-148, also known as "Obamacare", was passed as H.R. 3590 and was signed by "President" Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Challenges to the constitutionality of the PPACA were filed in the Federal District Court in Pensacola, Florida that day by the Florida Attorney General, the Pennsylvania Attorney General and several other State Attorneys General.

Several other cases were filed in different Federal District Courts. Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, ruled that, as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" which requires people to buy insurance in violation of the "commerce clause", the entire law must be declared void. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia upheld Judge Vinson's decision, but held that the "individual mandate" was severable, thus the entire PPACA was not unconstitutional.

Other Federal District Courts and Appellant Courts found that "Obamacare" was constitutional. The case was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral argument on this landmark case was held by the U.S. Supreme Court over three days for two hours each day. The first day of argument (March 26, 2012) addressed whether the case could be heard by the Supreme Court because, according to the DOJ, the "individual mandate" is a tax, and the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 requires that a tax already be implemented in order for plaintiffs to have standing to sue on the basis that a tax is unconstitutional.

The second day's argument (March 27th) concerned the "individual mandate" being unconstitutional because it violated the "commerce clause" of the federal Constitution. And finally, the last day's argument (March 28th) addressed if the PPACA was "severable" and if all federal Medicaid funds could be withheld from a State if a Health Exchange was not implemented by the State. The U.S. Supreme Court delivered its very controversial 5 to 4 decision and opinion in the Obamacare case on June 28, 2012. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, declared that the "individual mandate" penalty was a tax and thus it and the entire PPACA was constitutional with the exception that the federal government could not withhold existing Medicaid funds from a State that chose to not implement the Health Care Exchange required by Obamacare.

Now let's examine some of the reasons this U.S. Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional.

1) First and foremost, there is absolutely no lawful authority delegated to Congress to allow federal legislation on health care or to require individuals to buy health insurance. At best these could only be very limited State issues. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case because those in Congress, Barack Obama and others in the federal government violated the Constitution for the United States of America.

Remember, we have repeatedly been told that health insurance cannot be purchased across State lines. This is true because only States can create corporations, not the federal government. Out-of-State Insurance Companies must be incorporated in a State to do business in that State. Also, any attempt to force a free individual to purchase anything against his or her will or conscience would, at a minimum, violate multiple provisions of both the State Constitution's "Declaration of Rights" and the federal Constitution's "Bill of Rights".

2) Since a State (in fact - 26 States) was the Plaintiff in this PPACA ("Obamacare") case filed on March 23, 2010, the Florida v. NHH case should have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court because it has original, not appellate, jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is a party in a federal lawsuit. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America states:

"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."

3) If the "individual mandate" penalty is a tax, the PPACA bill should have originated in the House, but the bill that resulted in Obamacare originated in the Senate. ("Origination Clause" - Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United State of America.)

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3200, was the original health care bill that was marked up by three House Committees in the summer of 2009. The final version that was passed by the House is H.R. 3962. The House then forwarded H.R. 3962 to the Senate for passage.

The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members. As the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7) requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House, the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, after completely revising the content of the H.R. 3590 bill. The bill, as amended, incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed the alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590). In 2010, the House abandoned its reform bill in favor of amending the Senate bill (via the reconciliation process) in the form of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

A different bill, under the same bill number H.R. 3962, was eventually passed by Congress and, on June 25, 2010, was signed by the "President". This is the "Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010."

Any objective reader will correctly determine that this procedure was fraudulent and unconstitutional.

4) If the "individual mandate" penalty is a tax, then, according to the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) of 1867, the Supreme Court, or any other court, could not have heard the PPACA case until at least 2014 when the first "penalty" can be imposed. So, Chief Justice John Roberts and the four Justices joining the majority decision ignored the AIA and U.S. Supreme Court prior decisions and rules in order to grant standing, hear this case and make their decision. Where is the "Rule of Law" today?

5) If the "individual mandate" penalty is a tax, then it is a "direct tax" and must be apportioned among the States of the Union. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the federal Constitution. It won't be.

6) Chief Justice Roberts obviously rewrote the Statute. A "penalty" is not a "tax". Even now those in the Obama administration are insisting that the "individual mandate" is a "penalty".

Calling a "penalty" a "tax" in order to find Obamacare constitutional is classic fraud!

If this U.S. Supreme Court decision is constitutional, which it is not, the federal government now has the alleged lawful authority to tax anything the federal government decides to tax. Individuals can allegedly be taxed for doing nothing. How can this be constitutional?

Clearly, this is totally contrary to any rational reading and understanding of the Constitution for the United States of America, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments of the "Bill of Rights", the State Constitutions, and our many other founding and historical documents.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making

or legislation which would abrogate them." [Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491(1966)

The U.S. Supreme Court's Obamacare decision is unconstitutional. We must say NO to this and all other usurpations of power and authority by those in government at any time or place.