Daily Commentary
Four Ways to Get Rid of Obamacare:
1. The supreme Court may declare obamacare unconstitutional when this case gets to them. Anthony Kennedy is the “swing vote”, and court watchers tend to think Kennedy will vote that obamacare is unconstitutional.
2. The President has the power and the duty (imposed by his Oath of Office) to refuse to implement it. He should issue an Executive Order directing federal executive agencies not to implement obamacare. But this requires us to elect a President with a BRAIN and a SPINE who will actually HONOR HIS OATH to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. If we did, obamacare could be dead as soon as the new President takes office.
3. Congress could repeal it – but we have to send people to Congress who will do this.
4. State officials are required by their oaths of office (Art. VI, 3rd clause, U.S. Constitution) to refuse to implement obamacare.
It really is in the hands of The People. We just don’t seem to have the wisdom to elect people who will honor and obey The Constitution. We go by image & personality. Watch all the gushing among the people on our side over their candidate of choice for the nomination: None of the discussion is about obeying Our Constitution. We are like silly high school girls gushing over a silly boy. PH October 1, 2011.
17 Comments »
Leave a Reply
About
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following:
There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.
* * *
PERMISSION to re-post: You may re-post my papers on your own sites, provided you do not change the text, and provided you have a link back to my website. However, since I periodically revise my papers – and sometimes an error is pointed out to me by a kind reader – the better practice is to post a para or so and have a “continue reading here” which links to my site. That way, your readers will have the most recently revised edition.
* * *
Where do Rights come from? God? The Constitution? The supreme Court? Or the “government”? I’ll show you. It is important that you understand. (videos in two parts totaling 22 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpXBckyDac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN29tAiNV7o
* * *
To the Department of Homeland Security:
I am delighted to learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution! Please feel free to browse around to your hearts’ content.
Also, if any of you have questions as to the original intent of any provision or provisions of Our Constitution, please feel free to post your questions.
To learn Our Constitution, you will need to get a copy of The Federalist Papers; and for word definitions, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language. You can find The Federalist Papers on line; and here is an online copy of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: As I trust you know, word meaning are like the clouds: meanings change as time passes. So, naturally, we want to focus on the meanings enjoyed by Words during the Era of our Founding.
OK! Here is your homework assignment: Get a hard copy of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Read them cover to cover. Using different colored pencils, highlight (1) the powers of Congress, (2) the powers of the Executive Branch, and (3) the powers of the judicial branch.
With a 4th color, highlight all references to God in both Documents!
Please pay particular attention to what the Declaration says about the SOURCE of our Rights. Mark that with a 5th color.
Surprising, isn’t it?
Oh! You can get pocket copies from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. I think Heritage sells them in bulk – really cheap – so you can buy lots and distribute them to your co-workers, family and friends.
Again, do not be shy about posting your questions! I am just a little old lady, and do not bite.
Kindest regards, Publius Huldah.
Publius Huldah and her children,
Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Fluffy
PUBLIUS HULDAH
-
Word Press changed the procedures for posting new papers, and I am trying to figure it out. I tried to post a new paper a few minutes ago, but it only posted the title! Even so, “it” apparently sent my subscribers a notice that there was new content.
I am so sorry for the false alarm.
I hate change.
PH
My guy, Rick Perry, not only believes that the Entitlements are Ponzi schemes and unconstitutional but he also said that he would follow your advise and use an Executive Order to stop the implementation of Obamacare. He is the only candidate that is using such bold language to lead us back to a constitutional republic, complete with part-time legislators.
Then why, oh why, does he keep calling for a balanced budget amendment? The best thing that can be said about anyone who supports a BBA is that he does not understand the concept of enumerated powers. Those enumerated powers set the limits on what Congress is authorized to spend money on! Congress may spend money on the patent & copyright office, on hiring someone to mint coins, on a naturalization office, etc. (see list at Art. I, Sec. 8). The Constitution does not permit them to spend money on 99.9999% of the things they appropriate money for. The cure is for Congress to return to its enumerated powers!
The BBA cuts the heart out of our Constitution b/c it sets a new standard for spending: Congress may spend however much they take in [ i.e. the more taxes they collect, the more they can spend]. And Perry thinks THAT is a great idea?
And it is impossible to contact Perry and other candidates. They don’t seem to give a hoot when people try to instruct them on The Constitution. They all seem to be so full of themselves that they are deaf to whatever we say. All they want from us is money.
So, every time I hear Perry’s ad on Faux News, I wonder if he is the complete idiot or if he realizes WE THE PEOPLE are such idiots that he can pander to our ignorance by calling for a BBA.
Michelle Bachmann was my choice until she too came out for the BBA. I fear all the candidates are so ignorant that we are doomed.
Larry, if YOU have access to Perry, then explain to him why the BBA is such a BAD idea. I have two papers on it which spell it out. I trust that if we ever could get a candidate who knows the Constitution and is willing and able to explain it to The People, he would do well.
Balanced Budget Amendment – It’s one of those “tricksie” terms that sounds good, but is just what you say, Huldah. It turns the Fox (Congress) loose on the American taxpayers. The Congress sets the “Budget” and we have to come up with the money. And like you say, the Enumerated Powers limit what Congress can spend money on. That’s much too restrictive to the repubs and dems. Reckon, this is why they keep trying to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
What I want to know is, what happened to the Graham-Rudman Balanced Budget Amendment?????? Did it get lost in the “paper shuffle”?????? Not that I’m for the Graham-Rudman, but if there already is a Balanced Budget Amendment that Congress past, How come Congress doesn’t REPEAL old BBA, and what’s different from Graham-Rudman from this newly come up Unconstitutional legislation? They are both Unconstitutional.
I have been often asked, which of the repub candidates, this “time around”, I am supporting. I’m for “NONE OF THEM”.
The ONLY redeeming point, I can find in the whole convolution is this, “GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE”, that is such an Unconstitutional appendage stuck on US during the Wilson Administration, and in remorse, Wilson said, “I have destroyed my Country” or words to that effect. Mr. Paul talks about doing this, but whether he could or would might be another situation.
I, too, have tried to get ahold of a Candidate, but the candidates are insulated with “Aids” who are building an empire and playing games, while our Beloved Country is being destroyed before our eyes.
I like your suggestion, Huldah, about study helps in studying the Constitution. If this was a “required” Civics exercise in ALL Public Schools, we might get out of this “ditch” in a few years, and if we would recognize the Lord once more in this Christian Land, Supreme Decision, 1892, God would give US a “rebirth of Freedom”. I wish Congress would let you present this at Freshmen Orientation when the new Congressmen are sent up there. But, alas, I think their instruction is about the perks, pensions, and benefits they will receive, because they have come to this “high estate”. UGH
Thanks for your good work and Keep, Keeping on. God surely see the distress of our hearts. He sees our Tears and hears our Prayers for our Beloved America, the Beautiful.
For God & Country
Dear Huldah,
Could you get a copy of SB 1867, passed 11-30-2011, Former POW, presidential Candidate last time around, John McCain is a Co-sponsor. This horrible legislation passed with 93 Senators approving. Amendments were voted down, and the president is a dictator with powers to arrest American Citizens on “suspicion of being a terrorist”. Please remember, what Homeland Head Janet Napolitano defined as a “terrorist” in her directive in Spring, 2009, that caused “howls” from Patriots around the Country.
The full text was not available to the General public before the vote. It will have to be reconciled with the House Bill.
God Save America, Land that I Love
For God & Country
Ruth Ann, Here is the text of SB 1867, and even without having yet read a word of it, I can see that it is a disgrace: 682 pages! WHO reads 682 pages before they pass it?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
I’ll see what I can find out about it.
Ruth Ann, I have not had time to study the 682 page bill (who has?). But I found a very brief commentary on it which asks the right questions. It does appear that the bill empowers the federal government (the military only?) Homeland Security? DOJ? to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. Believe me when I say that lawyers who write such stuff are vague on purpose. We know how to say exactly what we want to say and how to reserve wiggle room in such a way that the laypeople don’t know what is being done.
http://hlpronline.com/2011/11/sb-1867-when-the-war-comes-home/#comment-7138
And to think that the People of the State of Arizona had the opportunity to rid themselves and us of that execrable John McCain.
Just a word of CAUTION: The website where the linked comment is posted is a lefty progressive website – but the brief comment by Marshall Thompson is worthy of reading.
P.H. and friends. I have read the bill in its entirety. I wish to point out one of the most overlooks issues today. Ruth Ann uses the term “American Citizen”, while P.H. used the correct term as used in the Act, that being “U.S.citizens”. While most people today believe that these terms are interchangeable, nothing could be further from the truth. The record is quite clear on this matter. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_22_10_23.html. TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 23
CHAPTER 23—PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD
§ 1731. Protection to naturalized citizens abroad
All **naturalized citizens of the United States** while in foreign countries are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to **native-born citizens**.
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 2000 derived from Act July 27, 1868, ch. 249, Sec. 2,
15 Stat. 224.
Section was formerly classified to section 903a of Title 8,
Aliens and Nationality.
-MISC1-
EQUITABLE TREATMENT BY UNITED STATES OF ITS CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD
Pub. L. 95-426, title VI, Sec. 611, Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 989,
as amended by Pub. L. 96-60, title IV, Sec. 407, Aug. 15, 1979, 93
Stat. 405; Pub. L. 97-241, title V, Sec. 505(a)(2), (b)(1), Aug.
24, 1982, 96 Stat. 299, provided that: “The Congress finds that –
”(1) **United States citizens** living abroad should be provided
fair and equitable treatment by the United States Government with
regard to taxation, citizenship of progeny, veterans’ benefits,
voting rights, Social Security benefits, and other obligations,
rights, and benefits; and
“(2) United States statutes and regulations should be designed
so as not to create competitive disadvantage for individual
**American citizens living abroad** or working in international
markets.”
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt
U.S. citizens are naturalized men. American Citizens are Native Born.. U.S. citizens are subject to whatever conditions Congress puts on them. Incidentally this is from the “expatriation” act (15 Stat 249) passed July 27,1868, the day before Congress declared the 14th amendment passed by J.R. over the reluctance of Secretary of State Seward, since he mentioned that the 39th Congress (radical Republicans) refused to give sufferage to the southern states, by refusing to seat the lawful legislature, whom it had previously allowed to ratify the 13th amendment. The Constitution specifically prohibits this. As such the 14th amendment is merely an act of Congress, unlawfully passed (non in compliance with Art. 5:3)
Lectures on the Constitution of the United States
By Samuel Freeman Miller Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. http://books.google.com/books?id=NOQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA280&output=text#c_top
“Looking at that section critically, you will see that citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State are distinctly spoken of as separate things, although the mode of ascertaining who is a citizen of the United States is to some extent through citizenship of a State. It is not necessary,
however, that a man should be a citizen of a State in order to be a citizen of the United States. If he is born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, he is a citizen of the United States, and being such a citizen he is, by virtue of the clause above quoted, necessarily a citizen of the State in which he resides. There is, therefore, no difficulty now in determining what is citizenship of the United States.
In regard to the use of the word ” jurisdiction” in the phrase, ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it may be remarked, that a child of a foreign ambassador, born within the limits of the United States, is not subject to its jurisdiction within the meaning of the language just quoted. He remains a foreigner and a subject of the kingdom or country which is represented by his father, and the same is true of all other diplomatic representatives.
If a stranger or traveller passing through, or temporarily residing in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.”
Mr.Obama might be in trouble if someone learns all this.
“A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and
inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)
Peace
Why, if there is no mention of any constitutional power to implement healthcare in the first place, is the case being decided on such narrow grounds as the individual mandate?
Wow, Larry! You sure hit the nail on the head! The argument “our side” is making is worse than stupid: Their argument seems to be that the supreme Court hasn’t before forced us to buy something. Well, duh! (1) Of course the supreme Court has forced us before to buy something: they forced us to buy social security insurance and medicare insurance – what’s the difference between that and obamacare? There is no material difference; and (2) If the standard of constitutionality is “what does the supreme Court require us to do”, then that they haven’t required us to do something in the past doesn’t stop them from requiring us to do it in the future.
You are correct: the proper argument is that obamacare is unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress. Why aren’t they making that argument? (1) Few attorneys or judges have any understanding of the concept of “enumerated powers” [it isn't taught in law school]; and (2) if obamacare is unconstitutional, then so is social security and medicare – and people LOVE social security & medicare.
So the moral/political issue of our time is whether the American people are willing to dismantle the federal social security and medicare programs. Our survival depends on their willingness to man up and start taking responsibility for their own lives! If the old people with their hands out continue to put themselves above their grandchildren, then we are doomed.
P.H. You state above, that the Scotus has “forced” us to buy “social security and welfare”. For the record they are both part of social security act (42 U.S.C.) along with child support coercion on the states (Interstate Family Support Act 42 U.S.C. sec. 666, that is scary alone:) Can you provide me with any such cases you are aware of? I have read several dozen SS cases from the 30′s and 40′s and none have directly stated that you MUST participate. On the contrary they merely said that the act “does” certain things IF you have a number. You also touched an issue I have long been curious about, that being is the Constitution taught in law school and if so, is it taught accurately.
Art.1:8:1 states for WHAT purposes Congress can impose taxes for
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Using proper grammar we find that the
POWER granted is “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”
THE PURPOSE “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” and nothing more.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
– President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]”
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
– President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
James Madison, the Founding Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
Peace
William Eugene
Thanks for your good advice. Since I have found your advice well informed and legally in line with the Constitution, I would hope that all of the hundreds of attorneys in Washington, DC and the Congress, all know how to get rid of this abomination called Obamacare.
Thanks again for your work.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
…and none of the current crop of ‘presidential candidates’ really speaks the truth about this…the sound bites overtake substance.
PH – I love it! Please keep in touch. You are educating so many people. I am sharing your page consistently via http://www.ShareTheConstitution.com, http://www.facebook.com/ShareTheConstitution & http://www.twitter.com/ShareLiberty. You are a national treasure. MAHALO!
Thank you, Ruth Ann!
We couldn’t figure out how to add my daily commentary on the lack of constitutional authority to prosecute the man for killing the bear who came into his yard (where he lives with his wife and children). It showed up only as a comment to this instead of as a separate entry.
When I graduated from law school, copying machines were very rare………
I like your idea of brief observations. Most of us get “three minutes at local County Commission” and I mean they time us. So thanks for the “condensed version”. We need the “long version”, too. This is real education, of God and Country, the kind of education people used to get before the atheists moved into the Public education of this Christian Nation.
You asked about the “endangered species” and the case of an American killing a bear in his yard.
I am sure that this nonsense is found somewhere in the UNELECTED ABC AGENCIES UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. This is Unconstitutional, but we have been ruled by caprice for so long, we have stopped being astonished at the absurd nonsense that passes as “law”.
Thanks for your writings. Our Liberty is in Law, God’s Ten Commandments and the Constitution.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Please bear with me:
My formal papers take a very long time to write; so my intent was to create a new page where I could post brief daily observations, with space for people to comment.
But we in my household are technologically challenged, and can’t figure out how to do it. We will keep trying.