Comment by Earl October 18, 2013 @ 6:22 pm Actually, the SCOTUS HAS ruled at least 6 times on the issue of the government mandating medicine, starting in 1925. ************************************************************* We know U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts hallucinated that Obamacare is a tax. Constitutional scholars and attorneys across this country, as well as informed citizens, were shocked. Had I been in the U.S. House at the time, I would have written the articles of impeachment and fought my best to see him removed from the bench. Likely, it wouldn’t have gone far, but putting the myth that federal judges and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for their lifetime without being held accountable in front of the American people would be a good thing. I highly recommend “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D. I am very hopeful the lawsuit challenging the origination clause forcing employers to purchase health insurance for their employees or pay government fines will and should be successful because the U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken on that single issue: Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330 (1935). Argued March 13, 14, 1935. Decided May 6, 1935: “The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.” Nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does it give the U.S. Congress authority to force any private-sector employer to provide for an employee’s health care simply to “relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.” Health-care coverage is a personal responsibility, not a constitutional right as we hear ad nauseum from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their comrades in Congress. The un-Affordable Health Care Act contains dozens of panels and boards that will dictate what doctors and health-care professionals can and cannot provide for their patients. Individuals who are not elected, most who aren’t even required to have any medical training, will dictate to doctors how they practice medicine within the states. Those panel and board members will literally (if they are not physicians) be practicing medicine without a license. Lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly and succinctly ruled on that issue: 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, 598, 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.” 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.” Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Linder). United States v. Anthony et al., 15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.Cal. 1936) (June 23 1936) Nos. 12069-12072. United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division “I am referring to these facts in order to indicate that we must bear in mind the purpose of the act – that the act is a borderline statute which must be interpreted in such a manner as to bring it within the constitutional power. And if we depart from it and interpret it either as attempting to regulate the disposition and sale of narcotics or attempting the regulation of medicine, we extend the act to the realm which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the federal government cannot enter, under the penalty of unconstitutionality. “The Linder Case (Linder v. United States [1925] 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229) is very important. We all seem to agree, whether we read it alike or not, that it determines this case, so far as the law is concerned. I wish to refer to it for the present only for the purpose of pointing out that the moment we assume that this act regulates the sale within the state of narcotics and that it aims to regulate the practice of medicine, we must hold it unconstitutional. “In the Linder Case, Mr. Justice McReynolds, speaking for the court, made this observation: ‘Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.’” Doctors and health-care professionals all across this country should join together in as many states as possible and file a lawsuit. Not only does it reduce the cost of retaining counsel, it will show the courts they refuse to be pushed around by agenda-driven, career politicians in Congress. The courts are not immune to public opinion, although they claim otherwise. There is a third legal issue: Equal protection under the law. Larry Becraft is a constitutional attorney in the federal arena for more than 35 years. He explains why this issue is ripe for a challenge: “There is a constitutional problem regarding Obamacare that nobody has mentioned: It violates principles of equal protection. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component, and thus equal protection principles apply to the feds. (See Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 224 (1995).) “The alleged need for Obamacare to take over the whole medical system in this country was based on the failure of a segment of American society to have medical insurance. Apparently, those who don’t have medical insurance adversely impact the medical industry and the delivery of medical services. However, it must be noted that those with medical insurance did not cause this problem. For purposes of argument only, let’s presume that the insured American public constitutes 80 percent of the populace, while the uninsured comprise 20 percent of the populace. “When a legislative body is attempting to address a social problem, whether great or small, it cannot impose duties on those who are not a part of or the cause of the problem without violating equal protection principles. For example, drunken drivers do constitute a hazard on the roads. But to address the problem caused by drunken drivers, a legislative body could not adopt of law affecting 100 percent of the driving public, inclusive of people who are not causing the problem, because to do so would violate equal protection. “Principles of equal protection are concerned with legislative classifications. If a legislature detects a problem and adopts of law that affects only a segment of those causing the problem, the legislature has created an ‘underinclusive’ class. If it adopts of law that affects a far broader class than those causing the problem, it has created an ‘overinclusive’ class. See Alvarez v. Chavez, 118 N.M. 732, 886 P.2d 461 (1994)(license restriction for bondsmen was overinclusive); Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm., 965 F.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (distinction in Cable Act between “external, quasi-private” and “wholly private” cable systems was “overinclusive * * * in that this burden does not serve the Act’s purpose”); Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 69 (Fla. 1990) (Equal protection analysis requires that classifications be neither too narrow nor too broad to achieve the desired end.) … “Why does Obamacare violate equal protection? Those who have insurance will have their medical services and treatments curtailed and controlled, even though they are not a part of the problem, which is caused by the uninsured. Encompassing 100 percent of the public to address a problem created by 20 percent of the public creates an overinclusive class, which violates equal protection. But then again, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid already solved the problem caused by the uninsured by taxing them in an amount that approximates insurance premiums. Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, it is insanely so.” Obamacare is not a law because it is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if a “law” has been on the books one day, one year or 10 years if it violates the supreme law of the land. We must continue to say no and fight back.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:49:33 +0000