All legislation that has to do w/ funding/taxes must begin in the House... the Obamacare bill began in the Senate.... it is illegal.
On Oct 12, 8:48 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > New post on *Western Journalism* **** > > **** > > ** ** > > <http://www.westernjournalism.com/?author=3478>**** > The Main Reason Obama-Care Is Unconstitutional Is Being > Missed<http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-main-reason-obama-care-is-uncons...> > **** > > by Debra Smith <http://www.westernjournalism.com/?author=3478> **** > > <http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Obama-Oba...> > **** > > *They are missing the main point of it all.***** > > If someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him as > to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you wouldn't. > And yet that is what is happening with the health care law. People are > arguing about what is in the law instead of the fact that the law is there > to begin with and shouldn't be.**** > > There is no power given to Congress that allows them to take over the > privately-owned health insurance industry and turn it into a government-run > health care system. The health care law is basically saying that there is > no longer any such thing as health insurance. ObamaCare is a health "care" > act, not a health "insurance" act. Hence the reason that no one can be > turned down. It is not insurance. Insurance insures us in case something > happens, not after it happens. We don't get house insurance after our > kitchen burns down.**** > > It is now health care, a government-run entity, in which everyone has to > put into the pot. And it is beyond socialism. It is out-and-out communism > because of the government's takeover of an industry, the dissolving of it, > and the forcing of those who were in that industry to now work for a > government-run entity. It is like this: You own a clothing store. The > government says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run > it as a place where people can come and just get whatever it is that they > need to wear within the government's standards; and everyone who gets their > clothing from you must pay a yearly amount to you that does not go over a > government-set amount of cost to them. You no longer own a store. You now > work for the government in a government-run clothing distribution place. > And you are no longer allowed to own and operate a true store again. You > are not allowed to make a profit above what the government allows you to > get paid yearly from each person who comes into the government-run clothing > distribution place. The government's claim is that it has a right to > regulate what you do for the good of commerce (trade) in this country.**** > > So how can the federal government do this? Legally, it cannot. It can only > do it illegally. And this is how it is doing it, illegally. Congress is > claiming that it has the power to regulate commerce under the commerce > clause when in fact it does not have a flat out-and-out power to regulate > commerce under the clause. It has a right "*To regulate commerce with > foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes*." > Its power is only to regulate the actual trade (the actual commerce) > "among" (as in "between") these entities, *not within*. If the > interpretation was really what Congress is claiming, then that would mean > that Congress can take over and run every American business, Indian > business, and even every business in any other nation, too. That which is > true for one part of the clause has to be true for the rest of it. But the > fact is, the interpretation is not right. It is flat-out wrong. So where > did this come from?**** > > Okay, follow me here: In 1938, a law (The Agricultural Adjustment Act) was > passed by Congress. The act actually put limits on how much wheat American > farmers could grow on their land. Congress wanted to stabilize the price of > wheat in the national market, so Congress sought to control the amount of > wheat produced. Congress actually wanted the wheat prices to go up to help > the economy. One farmer, Roscoe Filburn, grew more wheat than the law > allowed him to, but he was growing it for his own use (for his own > animals.) This resulted in the 1942 Supreme Court case, *Wickard v. Filburn*, > in which the Supreme Court said that he could not grow more than what the > law permitted him to grow. Because while he was growing his own wheat for > his own animals, he was then not purchasing food for his animals from > somewhere else. Hence, they said he was hurting the national market by > growing his own, instead of buying the extra that he needed.**** > > Does this sound crazy to you? That's because it is crazy! This is like > saying that you cannot sew your own clothes because when you sew your own > clothes, you are hurting the national economy by not purchasing your > clothes.**** > > Clearly in the case of *Wickard v. Filburn*, the Supreme Court made a bad > ruling. And yet, today's Congress used that ruling in the case that was > before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare. And both sides of the case acted as > if the *Wickard v. Filburn* case was just fine. The argument against > ObamaCare was simply saying that people cannot be forced into purchasing > something. The media reported this as "forced into commerce." However, this > was like saying it was okay to tell Roscoe Filburn that he could not grow > the extra wheat as long as he was not forced to buy it from someone else. > Not only was that wrong because we have a right to grow what we need, but > also because stopping him from growing what he needed did in fact force him > to buy it from someone else. And this is not to mention the fact that the > 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional, in and of itself, > because Congress only has the power to regulate what is sold to an entity > in another state, nation, or Indian tribe, not within a state.**** > > So here we are, in 2012, fighting a health care law that came to be on the > back of a wrong interpretation of the Commerce Clause, supported by a bad > 1938 law and a bad 1942 Supreme Court judgment. And the people who argued > against the health care law in court just fought something within the law, > instead of the law itself.**** > > Debra J.M. Smith 10-08-12www.InformingChristians.com**** > > Photo credit: terrellaftermath.com**** > > *Debra Smith <http://www.westernjournalism.com/?author=3478>* | October 10, > 2012 at 11:22 am | Tags: > Communism<http://www.westernjournalism.com/?tag=communism>, > Obamacare <http://www.westernjournalism.com/?tag=obamacare>, Supreme > Court<http://www.westernjournalism.com/?tag=supreme-court>| > Categories: > Commentary <http://www.westernjournalism.com/?cat=271>, Floyd > Reports<http://www.westernjournalism.com/?cat=44072821>| > URL:http://wp.me/py0Fe-ifN**** > > Comment<http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-main-reason-obama-care-is-uncons...> > **** > > See all > comments<http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-main-reason-obama-care-is-uncons...> > **** > > ** ** > > Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage > Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=c23a9dcd028da5d3dbea31832829e347...>. > **** > > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your > browser:http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-main-reason-obama-care-is-uncons... > **** > > ** ** > > **** -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
