Obamacare is not “the law of the land”. It is legislative tyranny!

[johnwk]

Obamacare is not “the law of the land”. It is legislative tyranny!

Translation: I and others who think as I do don't like it.

Your misrepresentation is noted. The truth is, Obamacare is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution as required, but intended to circumvent its very provisions and protections, e.g., it is presumptively unconstitutional because it impinges upon the fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices.


A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297,312.

"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,174,176.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us., 230 F, 2d 286,489.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

And so, as I previously stated, to say “Obamacare is the law”, one would have to implicitly assert that making one’s own medical and health care decisions and choices is not a fundamental right secured by the Constitution, even though it has long been settled by our courts that it is a fundamental right and therefore, Obamacare is “presumptively unconstitutional“.

Bottom line is, Obamacare is legislative tyranny backed up by judicial tyranny!



JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

 

[EriktheRed]

Obamacare is not “the law of the land”. It is legislative tyranny!

Translation: I and others who think as I do don't like it.

Your misrepresentation is noted. The truth is, Obamacare is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution as required, but intended to circumvent its very provisions and protections, e.g., it is presumptively unconstitutional because it impinges upon the fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices.


A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297,312.

"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,174,176.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us., 230 F, 2d 286,489.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

And so, as I previously stated, to say “Obamacare is the law”, one would have to implicitly assert that making one’s own medical and health care decisions and choices is not a fundamental right secured by the Constitution, even though it has long been settled by our courts that it is a fundamental right and therefore, Obamacare is “presumptively unconstitutional“.

Bottom line is, Obamacare is legislative tyranny backed up by judicial tyranny!



JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has been able to demonstrate that ACA as failed to meet constitutional and electoral process.

And yet, you have not addressed what has been posted in response to that claim.

When it is pointed out that ACA is constitutional, electoral process, and therefore legitimate, no legislative tyranny has occurred.

 

[Rinata]

You are all such Liars.

Any e-commerce veteran can tell you: If a start-up's business proposition is sound and it delivers what it promises, it survives early days when websites crash and chaos reigns. Then it thrives. We've seen it over and over, from America Online's mid-1990s outages to any of several crashes in Netflix shares when the company made pricing mistakes or Blockbuster made a run at its markets.

This brings us to Tuesday's launch of HealthCare.gov, the government-run insurance marketplace and centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act. The headlines are dominated by technical glitches likely to be gone by Thanksgiving. (More on that later.) Two main questions will matter once they're fixed.

Full coverage: Affordable Care Act

Tech problems: Traffic surges, glitches mark exchanges' opening

Interactive: What does health care act mean for you?

The most important is whether HealthCare.gov meets its fundamental task — creating a marketplace with an array of choices and competitive prices. The other is whether it explains insurance so people understand it — how to buy it, why they should, how the law's subsidies work, and helps them start grasping which policy works for them.

On those counts, HealthCare.gov is an out-of-the-box success.To look at HealthCare.gov, especially knowing some Internet history and health insurance, is to understand it will sell tons of insurance.To start with, 2.8 million people crashing a site on Day One is considered a high-class problem. "It shows they've hit the target,'' says venture capitalist David Jones, ex-chairman of health insurer Humana. "It's obvious.''

Let's say up front that HealthCare.gov's problems have kept me from doing all the comparison shopping I'd planned, getting detailed lists of plans available to everyone from 27-year-old single Floridians to a New Jersey family headed by a 52-year-old (like me).

Nonetheless, we know HealthCare.gov already offers about as much choice as auto-insurance exchanges like eSurance.com. ESurance was fine: In five minutes, I got quotes from three companies, and the site was ready to process my credit card. HealthCare.gov offers the average consumer 53 plans, according to the government, with the "vast majority" having more than one carrier to choose from.

What most people don't know is how cheap the insurance is. According to a calculator provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation — a link to which is on HealthCare.gov — the site's benchmark policy for a single 40-year-old non-smoker will cost $3,240 a year before subsidies based on income.

This is $2,700 less than the average for employer-provided health care coverage for individuals this year, as reported by Kaiser on Aug. 20.

In a case like mine — 52-year-old Dad, Mom and 12-year-old — a benchmark "silver" plan paying 70% of my family's health expenses is quoted at $13,040 by Kaiser. According to Kaiser's August survey, average employer-based family coverage costs $16,351, with workers picking up $4,565. If my family made the national median income of $51,017, tax subsidies would cover $8,770 of our ACA plan. We'd pay $4,270.

Finally, I asked for a basic rundown of the ACA's toughest test case — a 27-year-old single person making $20,000 a year. More than a quarter of young adults are uninsured, and $20,000 in annual income is too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to buy private insurance easily. I assumed this client smokes and lives in Jacksonville, Fla.

That silver policy costs $3,051, and the customer's share is $1,021, after the subsidies, Kaiser estimates. The average single worker contributes $999 for employer-provided coverage. A bronze plan with higher deductibles costs the worker $627, or $52 a month after subsidies. Not even cigarette money.

How is that possible? HealthCare.gov's logic is that selling every company's policies in the same place together forces insurers to offer their best prices. That undoubtedly helps. Some group plans may cover more, too, though group plans have plenty of gaps as employers pass more health care costs to workers. Kaiser says the average group-plan deductible for single workers is $1,135.

The other important question is how well HealthCare.gov walks people through the purchase, coaxing uninsured consumers who know little about insurance to buy it. HealthCare.gov excels at much of this already.

You immediately notice how many pages include questions on the right-hand side, linked to information intuitively related to what you're reading. And you notice the simplicity of the writing.

Take one critical question — the explanation of what the ACA's "gold," silver," and "bronze" policies are. The site gives a basic breakdown, suggesting plans best for young or old clients, with high medical expenses or very few. It takes 433 words — less than half the length of this story — written at a 12th-grade level.

Site-performance issues matter, but they don't ruffle e-commerce veterans much. I talked to a half-dozen, including two Bush administration officials who launched the marketplace for Medicare prescription-drug plans.

They said the problems may take a few weeks to two months to fix — and won't matter in the long run. Medicare Part D had smaller launch problems, now forgotten. "Every Internet company on the planet has had trouble scaling,'' says Ed Park, chief operating officer of Athenahealth, a Web-based processor of health-insurance reimbursements, whose brother Todd is the Obama administration's chief technology officer. "It happens to Twitter, to Amazon, Apple and Facebook.''

People thought Amazon and Priceline would collapse during the dot-com bust, too, and Netflix's obituaries have had more episodes than House of Cards. They won because they have delivered fundamental value. For HealthCare.gov, the fundamentals are well-priced insurance, clearly explained. And they're in place.

Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

 

[EriktheRed]

No one has been able to demonstrate that ACA as failed to meet constitutional and electoral process.

And yet, you have not addressed what has been posted in response to that claim.

When it is pointed out that ACA is constitutional, electoral process, and therefore legitimate, no legislative tyranny has occurred.

And taking all that into consideration, it's pretty clear that it really is just opinion that's driving so many to come to this conclusion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Obamacare IS the law.

But laws can be changed or rescinded.

And CONGRESS, holding the power of the purse strings, can also de-fund it.

So the lolberal talking pointless, "it is the law of the land," is entirely meaningless.

 

[johnwk]

Obamacare IS the law.

.

In fact only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are considered law ___ everything to the contrary being null and void, see: MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)!

Conceding the point that Obamacare is the law, is the first step to tyranny!


We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS that:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.”


The truth is, Obamacare is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution as required, but intended to circumvent its very provisions and protections, e.g., it is presumptively unconstitutional because it impinges upon the fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices . And with regard to a fundamental right, here is what some courts have stated:


A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297,312.

"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,174,176.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us., 230 F, 2d 286,489.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.






JWK




If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[Sherry]

Legal or not, I'm not alright with a law being passed, but then the President independently decides to change it how many times now?? Why should Congress be compelled to fund something that is no longer the original law that the body voted on?? Then they have the nerve to bitch about the Republicans wanting to pick and choose which parts of government to fund during the shutdown. Two can play at that fucking nonsense. Obama is cutting off his nose to spite his face by not delaying the individual mandate, the same way he allowed for businesses...fairness and a level playing field, yeah right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JWK, you are not a constitutional authority.

Since the executive authority for the implementation of any law belongs to the President as the CEO of America, although people may be upset how he follows through, such actions are legal.

Bush the Younger's signing points on matters of international jurisdiction in terms of armed forces used to drive me bats, but he had the right to do so.

So does any president.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Passed by House and Senate. Signed by President. Opined by SCOTUS. Obama re-elected easily in 2012 when the GOP's signature campaign points was to overthrow ACA.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land and the Will of We the People.

Yes, it was passed by the House and the Senate, without a single Republican vote. Moreover it was passed without having been read by anyone who voted for it. Remember the words of Nancy Pelosi?

The President signed it because he was just as uninformed and ignorant about the details as were the members of the House and the Senate.

How come the ruling of the Supreme Court is more valid now than it was regarding the 2000 presidential election?

ACA is every bit as bad a law as the Prohibition was and it will be repealed just as the Prohibition was.

He also didn't care one whit about what was in this "legislation". This is his legacy to the Nation and he already knew, quite clearly, what was in it before it was handed off the Pelosi and her gang of degenerates. This president is neither uninformed not ignorant. He is performing his task according to script, and getting much of his masters' agenda in place.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

Pay now, pay later. "Buy" health care "insurance", or pay a fine. That's quite a choice. Either way, the citizens are being scammed and bilked out of their money. Pay government, or pay government cronies, who will see to it that government gets their kickback.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The above from the reactionaries of the right are nothing but delusions.

10% of the country will not tell everyone else what they will do and not do.

They were part of the constitutional, electoral process and lost.

 

[johnwk]

JWK, you are not a constitutional authority.

Since the executive authority for the implementation of any law belongs to the President as the CEO of America, although people may be upset how he follows through, such actions are legal.

.

I am puzzled why you make assertions which have no basis in the wording or legislative intent of our Constitution. There are expressed limitations placed upon the president’s powers as there are specific requirements.

Under Article II, Section 1 we find, “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Section 1 goes on to outline how the president is chosen, his term in office, requirements to be president, and then commands he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So far, we find no “executive authority” mentioned in the Constitution, and no authority to pick, choose or alter laws which are enacted by Congress.


Moving on to Section 2, we find: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Again, no “executive authority” is found in the Constitution to pick, choose or alter laws which are enacted by Congress. In fact, the president is repeatedly informed in Section 2 that he may not act without the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

As to Section 3, the president is required from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Now, the above Section does allow the president to make recommendations to Congress which “he shall judge necessary and expedient”, but nowhere in the Section is the president granted the “executive authority” to pick, choose or alter laws which are enacted by Congress, nor enforce laws as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In fact, the wording is quite clear that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed


Well, we have one more Section to review, perhaps the “executive authority” you suggest will be found here.

Section 4, the final section states that: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This section would indicate the exercise of authority by the president of power not granted, which our founding fathers equate to in the Declaration of Independence as “usurpations” and “tyranny”, seems sufficient to me that our Speaker of the House is delinquent in not moving forward with articles of impeachment against a president who has repeatedly moved forward with “executive orders” that effectively encroach upon and overruled our legislative branch of government, not to mention his repeated refusals to enforce existing law, and has thus worked to subvert the separation of powers guaranteed under our Constitution, not to mention the bribery he has engaged in to get Obamacare adopted. Would our founding fathers not view these acts as malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance as “Misdemeanors”?

JWK


America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

 

[johnwk]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

Those who seek to purchase insurance to meet their personal health care and medical needs as they see fit are now required to purchase federally approved insurance. Are you suggesting the purchase of health insurance is not a primary decision which affects an individual’s health care and medical needs, nor is a fundamental right, and that government impinging upon this fundamental right is not presumptively unconstitutional?

Was this not fully discussed in the Terri Schiavo case in which it was argued that Terri had a fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions, and that a Florida Judge pointed out that it was indeed a fundamental right and for the government to interfere with that fundamental right was “presumptively unconstitutional"?


The truth is, Obamacare is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution as required, but intended to circumvent its very provisions and protections, e.g., it is presumptively unconstitutional because it impinges upon the fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices as I pointed out above. And with regard to a fundamental right, here is what some courts have stated:



"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297,312.



"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,174,176.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us., 230 F, 2d 286,489.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.


I suppose the next thing you will be telling us is that women do not have a fundamental right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[Hoffstra]

The ACA was legally voted on in the House and Senate.

The President signed the bill into law.

Its the law of the land.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, John, you are not a constitutional authority.

This is an issue on which you have no creditability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

I don't think it's a good idea to call the President a tyrant and then call for the above.

 

[Hoffstra]

[
America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

I don't think it's a good idea to call the President a tyrant and then call for the above.

its been reported. implied threats against politicians is not cool. I've called the Secrete Service to report less.

 

[Sarah G]

You might want to think about it a little more. It actually is the law of the land.

 

[EriktheRed]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

Those who seek to purchase insurance to meet their personal health care and medical needs as they see fit are now required to purchase federally approved insurance. Are you suggesting the purchase of health insurance is not a primary decision which affects an individual’s health care and medical needs, nor is a fundamental right, and that government impinging upon this fundamental right is not presumptively unconstitutional?

Was this not fully discussed in the Terri Schiavo case in which it was argued that Terri had a fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions, and that a Florida Judge pointed out that it was indeed a fundamental right and for the government to interfere with that fundamental right was “presumptively unconstitutional"?


The truth is, Obamacare is not a law made in pursuance of our Constitution as required, but intended to circumvent its very provisions and protections, e.g., it is presumptively unconstitutional because it impinges upon the fundamental right of the American People to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices as I pointed out above. And with regard to a fundamental right, here is what some courts have stated:



"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297,312.



"A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,174,176.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us., 230 F, 2d 286,489.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.


I suppose the next thing you will be telling us is that women do not have a fundamental right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices.


JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

Sorry, but you lost last November. Them's the breaks, y'know?