Illegal for Congress to vote Yes on Obamacare

According to John Hammel of the International Advocacy for Health Freedom,  Congress does not have the right to vote Yes to Obamacare and that in fact voting Yes is strictly Illegal. If they vote Yes they are directly violating their oath of office which they swore to uphold the Constitution.

All anyone would need to do to modify this to send to their own senators is to excerpt the part from your State Constitution which you can find in 2 seconds via a search, all the rest of the text can be copied into your own message- be sure to insert your own name and address- demand a reply and send it right away

We don't have to take this- this legislation destroys alternative medicine and our access to dietary supplements via its effects (see KILL OBAMACARE WITH ONE MOUSECLICK). We MUST assert our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Here is HOW- Please duplicate what I have done here, takes you 2 minutes- unless you also live in Washington State like I do, please just excerpt the same section from your states constitution to preface it, then copy the rest from mine- only put your name at the end.


CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition. 
Sec. 3. 
The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

 

TO: Senators Murray and Cantwell
Via Email Form on Your Websites

Dear Senators:

It is my understanding from the news reports that you are scheduled to vote in this Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefor, you must vote no or you will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government);

Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) ("It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.")

Oregon v. Ashcroff, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine, 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)
 

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. IV.

Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN
OF
1835
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Political power.
First. All political power is inherent in the people.

Right of the people.
2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.

Right to assemble and petition.
20. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

Acts void.
21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or any other article of this Constitution shall be void.

I require a DETAILED RESPONSE to this if you think I am in error in any way regarding this assertion. I demand a response.

(Put your name and address here.)
 

 

Syndicate

Syndicate content