Chief Justice Marshall, in
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) @ 404http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html stated that:
“Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.”But in the words immediately preceding this, he also stated the solution inside of the problem.
“The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” Obama has regularly stated that if Congress does not legislatively act on an issue that helps him subvert or abridge or remove certain Constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens, he will merely do a legislative end-run around them and create an Executive Order or simply put an action into motion as part of his Executive Policy anyway. He has even stated this threat before the U.S. Supreme Court Justices attending front and center at the State of the Union Speech in which he has also reiterated such threats.
Obama as a M-level lecturer on the Constitution (M for Morons) with with the University of Chicago syllabus of which he spoke on how to subvert the Constitution via the 14th Amendment, for example, he appears oblivious to the Supreme Court's decisions in respect to his end-run threats.
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/case.html“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”He is to act within the confines of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, because the Constitution is a law, not a guide of recommendations. The Constitution lists a Bill of Rights he must uphold, but Obama is apathetic to any admonition to this regard and the legal counsel.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."But now, we kick it up a notch.
When the I.R.S. makes out its taxes for 2013 in 2014, Americans may do well to pay their normal taxes under the 2012 rate and deduct the extra Obamacare charge that may range from $695 per person to 2.5% of a person’s income, whichever amount is greater, what would happen if more than half of we who pay income taxes flatly refuse to pay the added unConstitutional amount, because Obama is NOT legal? The actual tally was only one lone Chief Justice that mandated Healthcare by inserting a form of legislation into the decision and calling it a "tax".
Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/120/97/case.html “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.” 5 justices did NOT carry Obamacare, the vote was 4-4-1. Yet, when we discuss it, it is treated as though the stalled opinion to pass the mandate by 4 against 4 is to be treated as though it were a majority opinion, even when it is not. It is a 4-4-1 decision outright, and 8-1 against Roberts in re-legislating it as a tax from the bench.
Question: Did the Healthcare Law regarding Part III-B (the mandatory purchase or pay the fine requirement) legally really pass United States Supreme Court Muster?
NO CONSENSUS as to what Constitutional Provision acted as the engine of Healthcare was ever decided upon in majority. Tens of thousands of attorneys need to put down their paper, stop trusting hearsay, and read the decision carefully and thoroughly for themselves. The Opinion of Roberts was just that, an opinion…and oddly enough, as regarding the Healthcare Law as only Constitutional when it is regarded as a tax was the opinion of 1. Are we to take that the opinion of just one Court Justice now trumps the contrary opinions of the other 8? No. Of course we should NOT.
…Did the Court see to a Consensus of Affirmation
Aequam Servare Mentem (a Consensus of Affirmation keeping an even mind)? No. A minority opinion said that it can be legal if you rule that only this part of the Constitution over here is used, but not that part over there; while another minority opinion said, No, you must use that part of the Constitution over there but you cannot use this part of the Constitution over here. Effectually, by majority, Healthcare as a mandate, when challenged by closer examination, I would argue, appears to have been more struck down than not, regarding the forced purchase or pay mandate…despite claims to the contrary, even by what the Media has thus far gleaned from the syllabus and Opinion of the Chief Justice.
Syllabus:[Page 3]
“ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.” So let's have that discussion now.
By refusing to pay the added "premium", we commit NO actual crime if it is an unConstitutional Act in the first place, do we not? For the Court has stated in
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/371/case.html“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”And to add injury to injury, since Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and has NO admissible in U.S. Court documentation to prove authority under Bute v. Illinois 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 and Nguyen v. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001) @ 54, 62; then, he has no authority and no tangible office by which to prosecute except as a criminal in office acting under color of authority in a usurpation of power. The question on Healthcare might be, whether like Ernst Janning, Chief Justice Roberts may be chargeable for crimes against the Constitution and Humanity at a time when his "leader" is toppled, because he acts outside the protection of the Constitution of the Sovereignty at the time.
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.htmlThe act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...t is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507. The essential, is that Roberts, in the Judicial Branch, has no legal authority to mandate a tax upon any of us, because that power exclusively belongs to Congress in the Legislative Branch.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @528-29 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/495/case.html@ 495
“Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.” @528
“Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. [Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121; Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 426. ]
The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." “
…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. “
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/case.html “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/case.html “But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) @ 290http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/114/270/case.html"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. " By declaring you have powers and authority outside that granted by the Constitution and acting on that claim, you act and speak falsely in the name of the Government and under color of authority.
That means that Obama is prosecutable without statute of limitations and without protection for being a usurper, not being a Constitutionally qualified office holder without a U.S. Natural Born Citizenship (even as he votes as Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, for himself in the 2012 election with a White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address, etc.); and that Chief Justice Roberts may also one day concurrently join him in prison as well, it seems to me.
Topic: Let's discuss and prepare a rock solid legal offensive against Obama in Court (Read 25911 times)