Call for Unity to Stop the Lunacy: Petition and Lawsuit against ACA

[emilynghiem]

Dr Hotze Petition | Conservative Republicans of Texas

Please SIGN Dr. Hotze's petition, that Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz
have both endorsed, along with others in agreement the ACA is unconstitutional.

Good News: Dr. Hotze was found as having standing to sue, and these arguments made are highly favored as the strongest chances Constitutionally.
Bad News: Clinton-appointed Judge ruled ACA constitutional.
Good News: Appeals in 5th Circuit is before the most conservative court;
and you can join in signing the petition to educate the public on these corrections.

Note: Dr. Hotze interview on the radio explained (1) the Origination Clause requires tax revenue bills to start in the House.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/30/origination-clause

This isn't just a technical argument; but issue of representation checks and balances by the people:

"Consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons, the Framers expected that the Origination Clause would ensure that "power over the purse" would lie with the legislative body closer to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax individuals, and the clause was one of several provisions meant to cabin the national revenue power created under the Constitution. The clause was also part of a critical compromise between large and small states, helping to temper the large states' unhappiness with equal representation in the Senate by leaving the power to initiate tax bills with the House of Representatives, where the large states had greater influence."

(2) the 5th Amendment argument is against federal govt MANDATING business to business interaction, between the employer and insurance company.
He explained on air that there is legal precedence backing up this argument that the federal govt cannot MANDATE this, so it must remain optional/voluntary.

(3) He explains below that these two points were NOT previously argued before the Supreme Court ruling. And they have the best chances of stopping the unconstitutional mandates.

Here is the good news. I filed a federal lawsuit in Houston, Hotze v. Sebelius, on May 7, 2013 to overturn ObamaCare on the grounds that it 1) violates the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) it violates the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Neither issue was adjudicated in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius lawsuit. This was the lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court initially upheld ObamaCare by a vote of 5 to 4.

On January 10, 2014 Federal District Judge, Nancy Atlas, resolved all of the procedural issues in my favor, specifically that I had legal standing. She then ruled that ObamaCare was constitutional. This was no surprise since Judge Atlas was a Clinton appointee.

Immediately, my attorney, Andrew Schlafly, appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit Court is by far and away the most conservative of the 13 federal circuit courts.

Of the nearly 100 lawsuits that have been filed against ObamaCare, my lawsuit has been ranked #1 ... This is our best chance to stop Obamacare and I need your help.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see link to website above].

The way has now been cleared for the Fifth Circuit to rule on the merits of my lawsuit against ObamaCare. The Fifth Circuit will hear and decide, de novo (a new trial), my two constitutional challenges to ObamaCare which are based on the Origination Clause and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in Hotze v. Sebelius, Docket No. 14-20039 (5th Cir.). Legal briefings will be presented to the Fifth Circuit, including amicus briefs, by the end of March. Amicus means friend in Latin. An amicus brief is a separate written legal argument made by a friend of the lawsuit.

Senator John Cornyn is drafting an amicus brief in support of my lawsuit that he and Congressman Pete Sessions, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, will circulate among Republican congressmen and senators for endorsing signatures. Another amicus brief will be circulated among Republican attorney generals from across the country.

This case will be the first time that the conservative Fifth Circuit has ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The Court will be able to invalidate all of ObamaCare on any basis or it may invalidate essential parts of ObamaCare in order to render it inoperative as a practical matter. For example, the Fifth Circuit could easily declare the individual and employer mandates to be voluntary rather than enforceable by mandatory penalties. If this were to be the Fifth Circuit’s decision, then ObamaCare would collapse.

The Fifth Circuit is the only court that chastised Obama for his arrogant comments about this Obamacare. The Fifth Circuit even ordered the Department of Justice to explain Obama’s comments.

Do you agree that getting rid of ObamaCare is the #1 political issue in 2014? If you do, then you understand why my lawsuit against ObamaCare is so important and so timely.

Here is the projected timetable. The legal briefs are due by the end March. Oral hearings before a three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit should occur before June 1st. The final decision of the Fifth Circuit should be made by September of this year.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see links at http://www.crtpac.com]. This is our best chance to defeat Obamacare and I need your help.
....

Please send this letter and petition to your distribution list.

Confident of victory, I remain, as always,

Sincerely yours for Constitutional liberty,
[Signed Dr. Hotze, CRT]

 

[P@triot]

Good stuff - thanks for posting

 

[Stephanie]

come on folks, we the people don't need to take this and should fight it any way we can

 

[RKMBrown]

In my opinion this case has no standing. It has no standing because it makes false assumptions regarding what actually happened.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

So the senate brought the bill forward by editing an unrelated bill.. this is true.

And yes the house was supposed to be the one originating.

However after the senate voted the house subsequently originated a new bill that ended up being passed in the senate. Thus the bill the senate originated was not the final ACA.

The republicans were not able to filibuster in the house and against unanimous opposition by the republicans the house caved and originated the ACA bill in the house using the senate text plus some extensions, I have no idea why the republicans were not able to force greater than a simple majority with a filibuster. It's not the job of the SCOTUS to manage the house of representatives. The minority leader of the house must have been... short on gonads. The argument that none of the words of the ACA originated from the house is moot since the house passed it. What the house should have done is filibuster it or shelve it. There is no law saying the senate can't propose spending/bills. A portion of a bill such as an amendment may be the entire bill.. So, again the house caved, ceding it's right to originate all spending bills by approving the senate amendments. Had they not approved the ACA bill this case would have merit.

 

[HenryBHough]

Prediction:

Obamacare will not die until blood is spilled.

 

[billyerock1991]

come on folks, we the people don't need to take this and should fight it any way we can

sorry stephoney no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you wish, no matter how hard you pray... you can't fix your broken hymen !!!!

Billye rocks is the lead singer for the "Buster hymen band"

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi RKMB what the Judge in Matthew Sissel's case did was argue that the ORIGINAL bill that ACA amended DID start in the House as a tax bill in 2009; and argued the Senate was within constitutional bounds to amend the bill to the form in which it was passed. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/...k-an-origination-clause-challenge-to-the-aca/

Since the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional as a tax, although the individual responsibility was not supportable under the Commerce clause,
I believe the fairest interpretation is that the bill is a HYBRID mixing both a tax with a condition that individuals pay for health insurance (and not other means of paying for health care) as the only condition for avoiding the tax.

Since there has not been a previous precedent for this type of capacity of federal govt, mixing a tax with health care coverage through PRIVATE insurance under terms specified by govt, this should normally require a Constitutional amendment to prove the States and people are represented in giving this expanded authority to federal govt.

So I still believe pushing this bill through Congress and federal govt violated
1. religious freedom of those who believe HOW to pay for health care is a choice reserved to the people to vote on through the States
2. equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed, by only penalizing citizens who disagree that health care is a right and are punished for believing in paying for health care other ways besides federal insurance mandates, without due process and without committing any crime to merit depriving citizens of previously held liberty
3. involuntary servitude by compelling opponents of the mandate to either pay or work for insurance coverage they do not agree to under these terms; compelling doctors or other medical service providers to work or provide services under terms they disagree with and/or believe violate their hippocratic oath; or compelling taxpayers to pay taxes or give up more labor hours to govt under a system that does not represent beliefs in free choice.

combination of violations of Amendments One, Fourteen, Thirteen, Ten, Four and Five. Plus the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, by putting partisan agenda before Constitutional duty to represent all people of all views equally protected by law.

the fact that the Democrats had pushed for prochoice against prolife laws due to faith based biases toward right to life over right to choose, but now violate prochoice for ACA mandates biased toward right to health over right to choose, shows political discrimination against religious creed. abusing majority rule, media, political and governmental power to reinforce such discrimination constitutes conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Is anyone up for making this argument?

If the ACLU defends atheists offended by a simple Cross or nativity scene that they don't believe in; why not defend health care choice believers offended by impositions by right to health mandates fining citizens for wanting to pay for health care by free choice which isn't a crime.

In my opinion this case has no standing. It has no standing because it makes false assumptions regarding what actually happened.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

So the senate brought the bill forward by editing an unrelated bill.. this is true.

And yes the house was supposed to be the one originating.

However after the senate voted the house subsequently originated a new bill that ended up being passed in the senate. Thus the bill the senate originated was not the final ACA.

The republicans were not able to filibuster in the house and against unanimous opposition by the republicans the house caved and originated the ACA bill in the house using the senate text plus some extensions, I have no idea why the republicans were not able to force greater than a simple majority with a filibuster. It's not the job of the SCOTUS to manage the house of representatives. The minority leader of the house must have been... short on gonads. The argument that none of the words of the ACA originated from the house is moot since the house passed it. What the house should have done is filibuster it or shelve it. There is no law saying the senate can't propose spending/bills. A portion of a bill such as an amendment may be the entire bill.. So, again the house caved, ceding it's right to originate all spending bills by approving the senate amendments. Had they not approved the ACA bill this case would have merit.

 

[emilynghiem]

come on folks, we the people don't need to take this and should fight it any way we can

sorry stephoney no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you wish, no matter how hard you pray... you can't fix your broken hymen !!!!

Billye rocks is the lead singer for the "Buster hymen band"

Dear Billye: if you are talking in general, I would agree with you that once some things are done they can't be undone.

However in the case of the ACA violating the trust and consent of the people,
I believe this can be amended, although not without great effort by proponents and opponents working together.

it will take agreement on the letter and spirit of the Constitution; agreement how to make a dual interpretation work that protects and includes both beliefs that health care is a right and how to pay for it is a free choice; and how to implement reforms without religious, political or personal conflicts between members or leaders of any parties, equally recognized and included under Constitutional protections to exercise and fund their beliefs.

at that point, we will no longer be virgins, but should know the facts of life!

ps if your intent was to make a crude remark directed at Stephanie, only you can fix your attitude problem which is not her responsibility.
fixing what is wrong with the ACA bill is all our responsibility, or letting conflicts continue is violating civil rights to redress grievances on all sides.

 

[billyerock1991]

Dr Hotze Petition | Conservative Republicans of Texas

Please SIGN Dr. Hotze's petition, that Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz
have both endorsed, along with others in agreement the ACA is unconstitutional.

Good News: Dr. Hotze was found as having standing to sue, and these arguments made are highly favored as the strongest chances Constitutionally.
Bad News: Clinton-appointed Judge ruled ACA constitutional.
Good News: Appeals in 5th Circuit is before the most conservative court;
and you can join in signing the petition to educate the public on these corrections.

Note: Dr. Hotze interview on the radio explained (1) the Origination Clause requires tax revenue bills to start in the House.

Guide to the Constitution

This isn't just a technical argument; but issue of representation checks and balances by the people:

"Consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons, the Framers expected that the Origination Clause would ensure that "power over the purse" would lie with the legislative body closer to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax individuals, and the clause was one of several provisions meant to cabin the national revenue power created under the Constitution. The clause was also part of a critical compromise between large and small states, helping to temper the large states' unhappiness with equal representation in the Senate by leaving the power to initiate tax bills with the House of Representatives, where the large states had greater influence."

(2) the 5th Amendment argument is against federal govt MANDATING business to business interaction, between the employer and insurance company.
He explained on air that there is legal precedence backing up this argument that the federal govt cannot MANDATE this, so it must remain optional/voluntary.

(3) He explains below that these two points were NOT previously argued before the Supreme Court ruling. And they have the best chances of stopping the unconstitutional mandates.

Here is the good news. I filed a federal lawsuit in Houston, Hotze v. Sebelius, on May 7, 2013 to overturn ObamaCare on the grounds that it 1) violates the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) it violates the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Neither issue was adjudicated in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius lawsuit. This was the lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court initially upheld ObamaCare by a vote of 5 to 4.

On January 10, 2014 Federal District Judge, Nancy Atlas, resolved all of the procedural issues in my favor, specifically that I had legal standing. She then ruled that ObamaCare was constitutional. This was no surprise since Judge Atlas was a Clinton appointee.

Immediately, my attorney, Andrew Schlafly, appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit Court is by far and away the most conservative of the 13 federal circuit courts.

Of the nearly 100 lawsuits that have been filed against ObamaCare, my lawsuit has been ranked #1 ... This is our best chance to stop Obamacare and I need your help.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see link to website above].

The way has now been cleared for the Fifth Circuit to rule on the merits of my lawsuit against ObamaCare. The Fifth Circuit will hear and decide, de novo (a new trial), my two constitutional challenges to ObamaCare which are based on the Origination Clause and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in Hotze v. Sebelius, Docket No. 14-20039 (5th Cir.). Legal briefings will be presented to the Fifth Circuit, including amicus briefs, by the end of March. Amicus means friend in Latin. An amicus brief is a separate written legal argument made by a friend of the lawsuit.

Senator John Cornyn is drafting an amicus brief in support of my lawsuit that he and Congressman Pete Sessions, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, will circulate among Republican congressmen and senators for endorsing signatures. Another amicus brief will be circulated among Republican attorney generals from across the country.

This case will be the first time that the conservative Fifth Circuit has ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The Court will be able to invalidate all of ObamaCare on any basis or it may invalidate essential parts of ObamaCare in order to render it inoperative as a practical matter. For example, the Fifth Circuit could easily declare the individual and employer mandates to be voluntary rather than enforceable by mandatory penalties. If this were to be the Fifth Circuit’s decision, then ObamaCare would collapse.

The Fifth Circuit is the only court that chastised Obama for his arrogant comments about this Obamacare. The Fifth Circuit even ordered the Department of Justice to explain Obama’s comments.

Do you agree that getting rid of ObamaCare is the #1 political issue in 2014? If you do, then you understand why my lawsuit against ObamaCare is so important and so timely.

Here is the projected timetable. The legal briefs are due by the end March. Oral hearings before a three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit should occur before June 1st. The final decision of the Fifth Circuit should be made by September of this year.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see links at http://www.crtpac.com]. This is our best chance to defeat Obamacare and I need your help.
....

Please send this letter and petition to your distribution list.

Confident of victory, I remain, as always,

Sincerely yours for Constitutional liberty,
[Signed Dr. Hotze, CRT]

ah let them waste their money ... like everything the right has tried it went down in flames ... its their money to waste, or some fool donating to their cause ... some body has to pay for their stupidity

 

[billyerock1991]

Dr Hotze Petition | Conservative Republicans of Texas

Please SIGN Dr. Hotze's petition, that Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz
have both endorsed, along with others in agreement the ACA is unconstitutional.

Good News: Dr. Hotze was found as having standing to sue, and these arguments made are highly favored as the strongest chances Constitutionally.
Bad News: Clinton-appointed Judge ruled ACA constitutional.
Good News: Appeals in 5th Circuit is before the most conservative court;
and you can join in signing the petition to educate the public on these corrections.

Note: Dr. Hotze interview on the radio explained (1) the Origination Clause requires tax revenue bills to start in the House.

Guide to the Constitution

This isn't just a technical argument; but issue of representation checks and balances by the people:

"Consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons, the Framers expected that the Origination Clause would ensure that "power over the purse" would lie with the legislative body closer to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax individuals, and the clause was one of several provisions meant to cabin the national revenue power created under the Constitution. The clause was also part of a critical compromise between large and small states, helping to temper the large states' unhappiness with equal representation in the Senate by leaving the power to initiate tax bills with the House of Representatives, where the large states had greater influence."

(2) the 5th Amendment argument is against federal govt MANDATING business to business interaction, between the employer and insurance company.
He explained on air that there is legal precedence backing up this argument that the federal govt cannot MANDATE this, so it must remain optional/voluntary.

(3) He explains below that these two points were NOT previously argued before the Supreme Court ruling. And they have the best chances of stopping the unconstitutional mandates.

Here is the good news. I filed a federal lawsuit in Houston, Hotze v. Sebelius, on May 7, 2013 to overturn ObamaCare on the grounds that it 1) violates the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) it violates the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Neither issue was adjudicated in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius lawsuit. This was the lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court initially upheld ObamaCare by a vote of 5 to 4.

On January 10, 2014 Federal District Judge, Nancy Atlas, resolved all of the procedural issues in my favor, specifically that I had legal standing. She then ruled that ObamaCare was constitutional. This was no surprise since Judge Atlas was a Clinton appointee.

Immediately, my attorney, Andrew Schlafly, appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit Court is by far and away the most conservative of the 13 federal circuit courts.

Of the nearly 100 lawsuits that have been filed against ObamaCare, my lawsuit has been ranked #1 ... This is our best chance to stop Obamacare and I need your help.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see link to website above].

The way has now been cleared for the Fifth Circuit to rule on the merits of my lawsuit against ObamaCare. The Fifth Circuit will hear and decide, de novo (a new trial), my two constitutional challenges to ObamaCare which are based on the Origination Clause and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in Hotze v. Sebelius, Docket No. 14-20039 (5th Cir.). Legal briefings will be presented to the Fifth Circuit, including amicus briefs, by the end of March. Amicus means friend in Latin. An amicus brief is a separate written legal argument made by a friend of the lawsuit.

Senator John Cornyn is drafting an amicus brief in support of my lawsuit that he and Congressman Pete Sessions, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, will circulate among Republican congressmen and senators for endorsing signatures. Another amicus brief will be circulated among Republican attorney generals from across the country.

This case will be the first time that the conservative Fifth Circuit has ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The Court will be able to invalidate all of ObamaCare on any basis or it may invalidate essential parts of ObamaCare in order to render it inoperative as a practical matter. For example, the Fifth Circuit could easily declare the individual and employer mandates to be voluntary rather than enforceable by mandatory penalties. If this were to be the Fifth Circuit’s decision, then ObamaCare would collapse.

The Fifth Circuit is the only court that chastised Obama for his arrogant comments about this Obamacare. The Fifth Circuit even ordered the Department of Justice to explain Obama’s comments.

Do you agree that getting rid of ObamaCare is the #1 political issue in 2014? If you do, then you understand why my lawsuit against ObamaCare is so important and so timely.

Here is the projected timetable. The legal briefs are due by the end March. Oral hearings before a three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit should occur before June 1st. The final decision of the Fifth Circuit should be made by September of this year.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see links at http://www.crtpac.com]. This is our best chance to defeat Obamacare and I need your help.
....

Please send this letter and petition to your distribution list.

Confident of victory, I remain, as always,

Sincerely yours for Constitutional liberty,
[Signed Dr. Hotze, CRT]

Emily cincola is this you??? it look like your shit anyone remember ECINCOLA her biggest provider of information was from this Dr. Hotze's and jesus

and her picture of the eagle was one thing she used all the time

 

[Steven_R]

The taxes must originate in the House argument will never hold water. The Supreme Court has time and again left Congressional procedures up to Congress. The standard thinking among jurists is that if Congress said the procedures were followed, then that's good enough for the courts. To have the courts say otherwise somehow risks the balance of power between the three branches of government.

It's not right that basic contract law is ignored by the courts, but there it is.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hi RKMB what the Judge in Matthew Sissel's case did was argue that the ORIGINAL bill that ACA amended DID start in the House as a tax bill in 2009; and argued the Senate was within constitutional bounds to amend the bill to the form in which it was passed. Implementing Health Reform: Turning Back An ?Origination Clause? Challenge To The ACA ? Health Affairs Blog

Since the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional as a tax, although the individual responsibility was not supportable under the Commerce clause,
I believe the fairest interpretation is that the bill is a HYBRID mixing both a tax with a condition that individuals pay for health insurance (and not other means of paying for health care) as the only condition for avoiding the tax.

Since there has not been a previous precedent for this type of capacity of federal govt, mixing a tax with health care coverage through PRIVATE insurance under terms specified by govt, this should normally require a Constitutional amendment to prove the States and people are represented in giving this expanded authority to federal govt.

So I still believe pushing this bill through Congress and federal govt violated
1. religious freedom of those who believe HOW to pay for health care is a choice reserved to the people to vote on through the States
2. equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed, by only penalizing citizens who disagree that health care is a right and are punished for believing in paying for health care other ways besides federal insurance mandates, without due process and without committing any crime to merit depriving citizens of previously held liberty
3. involuntary servitude by compelling opponents of the mandate to either pay or work for insurance coverage they do not agree to under these terms; compelling doctors or other medical service providers to work or provide services under terms they disagree with and/or believe violate their hippocratic oath; or compelling taxpayers to pay taxes or give up more labor hours to govt under a system that does not represent beliefs in free choice.

combination of violations of Amendments One, Fourteen, Thirteen, Ten, Four and Five. Plus the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, by putting partisan agenda before Constitutional duty to represent all people of all views equally protected by law.

the fact that the Democrats had pushed for prochoice against prolife laws due to faith based biases toward right to life over right to choose, but now violate prochoice for ACA mandates biased toward right to health over right to choose, shows political discrimination against religious creed. abusing majority rule, media, political and governmental power to reinforce such discrimination constitutes conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Is anyone up for making this argument?

If the ACLU defends atheists offended by a simple Cross or nativity scene that they don't believe in; why not defend health care choice believers offended by impositions by right to health mandates fining citizens for wanting to pay for health care by free choice which isn't a crime.

In my opinion this case has no standing. It has no standing because it makes false assumptions regarding what actually happened.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

So the senate brought the bill forward by editing an unrelated bill.. this is true.

And yes the house was supposed to be the one originating.

However after the senate voted the house subsequently originated a new bill that ended up being passed in the senate. Thus the bill the senate originated was not the final ACA.

The republicans were not able to filibuster in the house and against unanimous opposition by the republicans the house caved and originated the ACA bill in the house using the senate text plus some extensions, I have no idea why the republicans were not able to force greater than a simple majority with a filibuster. It's not the job of the SCOTUS to manage the house of representatives. The minority leader of the house must have been... short on gonads. The argument that none of the words of the ACA originated from the house is moot since the house passed it. What the house should have done is filibuster it or shelve it. There is no law saying the senate can't propose spending/bills. A portion of a bill such as an amendment may be the entire bill.. So, again the house caved, ceding it's right to originate all spending bills by approving the senate amendments. Had they not approved the ACA bill this case would have merit.

Your three points make much more sense than the approach being proffered by the petition. FYI your first and second point are the same point, creed refers to religious beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

The taxes must originate in the House argument will never hold water. The Supreme Court has time and again left Congressional procedures up to Congress. The standard thinking among jurists is that if Congress said the procedures were followed, then that's good enough for the courts. To have the courts say otherwise somehow risks the balance of power between the three branches of government.

It's not right that basic contract law is ignored by the courts, but there it is.

Ayup.. just a waste of breath. The republicans and democrats of both houses let the shenanigans go on and on. They don't police their own procedures. They are basically houses of ill repute. And quite frankly, most of them should be treated as the whores they are.

 

[007]

Prediction:

Obamacare will not die until blood is spilled.

Our economy is on life support right now, and it won't be long before we won't be able to pay the interest on the debt. When that happens, and it will, all hell is going to break lose because our economy will implode. We'll drag the entire world down with us too.

Civil War II, and possibly WWIII.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dr Hotze Petition | Conservative Republicans of Texas

Please SIGN Dr. Hotze's petition, that Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz
have both endorsed, along with others in agreement the ACA is unconstitutional.

Good News: Dr. Hotze was found as having standing to sue, and these arguments made are highly favored as the strongest chances Constitutionally.
Bad News: Clinton-appointed Judge ruled ACA constitutional.
Good News: Appeals in 5th Circuit is before the most conservative court;
and you can join in signing the petition to educate the public on these corrections.

Note: Dr. Hotze interview on the radio explained (1) the Origination Clause requires tax revenue bills to start in the House.

Guide to the Constitution

This isn't just a technical argument; but issue of representation checks and balances by the people:

"Consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons, the Framers expected that the Origination Clause would ensure that "power over the purse" would lie with the legislative body closer to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could not tax individuals, and the clause was one of several provisions meant to cabin the national revenue power created under the Constitution. The clause was also part of a critical compromise between large and small states, helping to temper the large states' unhappiness with equal representation in the Senate by leaving the power to initiate tax bills with the House of Representatives, where the large states had greater influence."

(2) the 5th Amendment argument is against federal govt MANDATING business to business interaction, between the employer and insurance company.
He explained on air that there is legal precedence backing up this argument that the federal govt cannot MANDATE this, so it must remain optional/voluntary.

(3) He explains below that these two points were NOT previously argued before the Supreme Court ruling. And they have the best chances of stopping the unconstitutional mandates.

Here is the good news. I filed a federal lawsuit in Houston, Hotze v. Sebelius, on May 7, 2013 to overturn ObamaCare on the grounds that it 1) violates the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) it violates the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Neither issue was adjudicated in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius lawsuit. This was the lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court initially upheld ObamaCare by a vote of 5 to 4.

On January 10, 2014 Federal District Judge, Nancy Atlas, resolved all of the procedural issues in my favor, specifically that I had legal standing. She then ruled that ObamaCare was constitutional. This was no surprise since Judge Atlas was a Clinton appointee.

Immediately, my attorney, Andrew Schlafly, appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit Court is by far and away the most conservative of the 13 federal circuit courts.

Of the nearly 100 lawsuits that have been filed against ObamaCare, my lawsuit has been ranked #1 ... This is our best chance to stop Obamacare and I need your help.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see link to website above].

The way has now been cleared for the Fifth Circuit to rule on the merits of my lawsuit against ObamaCare. The Fifth Circuit will hear and decide, de novo (a new trial), my two constitutional challenges to ObamaCare which are based on the Origination Clause and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in Hotze v. Sebelius, Docket No. 14-20039 (5th Cir.). Legal briefings will be presented to the Fifth Circuit, including amicus briefs, by the end of March. Amicus means friend in Latin. An amicus brief is a separate written legal argument made by a friend of the lawsuit.

Senator John Cornyn is drafting an amicus brief in support of my lawsuit that he and Congressman Pete Sessions, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, will circulate among Republican congressmen and senators for endorsing signatures. Another amicus brief will be circulated among Republican attorney generals from across the country.

This case will be the first time that the conservative Fifth Circuit has ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The Court will be able to invalidate all of ObamaCare on any basis or it may invalidate essential parts of ObamaCare in order to render it inoperative as a practical matter. For example, the Fifth Circuit could easily declare the individual and employer mandates to be voluntary rather than enforceable by mandatory penalties. If this were to be the Fifth Circuit’s decision, then ObamaCare would collapse.

The Fifth Circuit is the only court that chastised Obama for his arrogant comments about this Obamacare. The Fifth Circuit even ordered the Department of Justice to explain Obama’s comments.

Do you agree that getting rid of ObamaCare is the #1 political issue in 2014? If you do, then you understand why my lawsuit against ObamaCare is so important and so timely.

Here is the projected timetable. The legal briefs are due by the end March. Oral hearings before a three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit should occur before June 1st. The final decision of the Fifth Circuit should be made by September of this year.

Please sign the Petition Supporting My Lawsuit to Stop Obamacare [see links at http://www.crtpac.com]. This is our best chance to defeat Obamacare and I need your help.
....

Please send this letter and petition to your distribution list.

Confident of victory, I remain, as always,

Sincerely yours for Constitutional liberty,
[Signed Dr. Hotze, CRT]

The only lunacy pertains to those who agree with this ignorant, partisan idiocy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Prediction:

Obamacare will not die until blood is spilled.

Our economy is on life support right now, and it won't be long before we won't be able to pay the interest on the debt. When that happens, and it will, all hell is going to break lose because our economy will implode. We'll drag the entire world down with us too.

Civil War II, and possibly WWIII.

Or... our government will reset the monetary system again, and back the new monetary system by assuming federal ownership of all privately owned land that they will then lease back to us through a new federal property tax that will start out very small, like SS did. We've gone broke before. We should not be surprised when our unlimited expansion of credit backed by vapor runs out of steam. You can't spend money you don't have, year after year as we have done, on things that don't have a return on investment... and expect to remain solvent.

 

[Spoonman]

Prediction:

Obamacare will not die until blood is spilled.

Our economy is on life support right now, and it won't be long before we won't be able to pay the interest on the debt. When that happens, and it will, all hell is going to break lose because our economy will implode. We'll drag the entire world down with us too.

Civil War II, and possibly WWIII.

in 2008 we all learned a lesson what happens when banks, corporations and people overextend themselves and accumulate too much debt. We learned, what will it take to get our government to learn?

 

[emilynghiem]

The only lunacy pertains to those who agree with this ignorant, partisan idiocy.

Hi CCJones: I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and gave a "thanks" to your message.
Because I interpreted your observation "openly" to mean both sides of the fence.
Thanks for that, and no thanks to the lunacy which I see as mutual.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily cincola is this you??? it look like your shit anyone remember ECINCOLA her biggest provider of information was from this Dr. Hotze's and jesus

and her picture of the eagle was one thing she used all the time

Hi Billy: No, I am not "Emily Cincola or Ecincola". Emily Nghiem is my real name, which I use to avoid any such confusion with other posters who may or may not use their real names.

I use the logo off the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, which I post for public distribution:
ethics-commission.net
I have no idea where or why this other person uses an eagle or associates with Dr. Hotze.

This is the only statement from this man I found that stuck to Constitutional language
and didn't run off on prolife biased statements against choice.

I am a prochoice progressive registered Democrat, so you are confusing me with someone or something else. Sorry for this confusion.

Please do not let past confusion or conflicts interfere with our maintaining a clear focus on constitutional principles I find to be universal and unifying in resolving points of agreement.

Thank you, Billy
I appreciate your participation in meaningful discussion of content