04/11/10 2nd Amendment / Health Care / Lawsuits

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
                                   – Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.
 
 
2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
USA Today Poll on Gun ownership
State No. 6: Arizona tells feds to stuff their gun regs  / Idaho is No. 7
HEALTH CARE
Robbing Peter to pay Paul’s health care
How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare
3 Reasons Health Care Reform Won’t Cut The Deficit By One Thin Dime – video
Health Care and the Constitution
LAWSUITS
Five More States Join Lawsuit Against ObamaCare, Total Now 18
Expert boosts Cox’s health care lawsuit
Doctors Sue to Overturn the Health Care Bill
No birth certificate? No Obamacare!
 
2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
USA Today Poll on Gun ownership

Obama’s new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2ndAmendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court’s accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.
USATODAY.com – Quick Question:  “Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?”
Poll at   http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

State No. 6: Arizona tells feds to stuff their gun regs  / Idaho is No. 7
A sixth state – Arizona – now has declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations in a surging movement among states that one supporter describes as a direct challenge to “a government monopoly on the supply of firearms.”
Arizona joins Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Tennessee as well as Montana.
Map of Firearms Freedom Act in various states, and more http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137649 

 
HEALTH CARE / LAWSUITS
Robbing Peter to pay Paul’s health care
April 1, 2010
Obamacare is a socialist law designed to take money from some Americans and use it to benefit others. The health care bill signed into law by President Obama is full of hidden time bombs. One costly provision buried in the lengthy reconciliation bill at the last minute has taxpayers covering long-term at-home care for the elderly. Through the so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act (CLASS Act), Americans will find between $150 and $250 taken out of their paychecks each month to cover this program nobody knew about.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/01/robbing-peter-to-pay-pauls-health-care/
 
 
How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare
Value Added Tax (VAT) …is a fancy way of saying national sales tax.
A VAT can be (and has been) structured in many different ways. But the real world results are always the same: higher taxes, more government spending, lower growth, fewer jobs and more special interest power.
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=5434e6a7608d4f3af222bcbcbff3423c&CID=6112856850&ch=0A695CAC1D0D61FEC045D34C076700E7
 
 
3 Reasons Health Care Reform Won’t Cut The Deficit By One Thin Dime – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un505mz35dY
 
 
Health Care and the Constitution
David Barton – 04/06/2010
Rep. John Conyers (MI) replied: “Under several clauses – the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others. All the scholars – the constitutional scholars that I know (I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know) – they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill.” 2
Of course, there is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution, but assuming that Conyers simply made an honest mistake, he likely was referring to the General Welfare Clause, which appears in two locations:
*We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

*The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States. ART. 1, SEC. 8, PAR. 1

…Madison then warned about the consequences of allowing Congress to expand the narrow meaning of the “General Welfare Clause”:
 
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the “general welfare.” 6
According to Madison, if the original intent of the General Welfare Clause were ever expanded, then Congress would begin an unbridled intrusion into areas that were deliberately designed by the Constitution to be under the control of the state and local governments. Two specific aspects of the Constitution were intended to prohibit such federal encroachments: (1) the Enumerated Powers Doctrine, and (2) the Bill of Rights – specifically the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Complete article  http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=49126      (Thanks, Susan Toms, PA)
 
LAWSUITS
Five More States Join Lawsuit Against ObamaCare, Total Now 18
by DFX April 08, 2010
“We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states,” Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said
http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Five-More-States-Join-Lawsuit-Against-ObamaCare-Total-Now-18.aspx
 
 
Expert boosts Cox’s health care lawsuit
By Dawson Bell - Free Press           April 7, 2010
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox’s legal challenge to sweeping federal health care legislation is a “serious constitutional claim” ….Randy Barnett, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown [University], said there is a realistic possibility the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could invalidate several of the new law’s key provisions as congressional overreach….
Barnett said Congress has never before asserted the authority to require individuals to make a specific purchase or be fined — as the health care legislation would, under a mandate that all American citizens have insurance or pay a fee to the government.
He said new regulations imposed on states as a condition of receiving Medicaid payments were also constitutionally suspect. Both aspects of the new health care law are targets of a lawsuit filed by Cox and 13 other state attorneys general.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100407/NEWS06/4070365/1322/Expert-boosts-Coxs-health-care-lawsuit

Doctors Sue to Overturn the Health Care Bill
       March 29th, 2010
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”
“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00974

No birth certificate? No Obamacare!
By Chelsea Schilling            April 08, 2010
Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California – is seeking to link her case and the case against the health-care law, Florida et al vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
In legal documents filed April 6 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Taitz requests an oral argument on the motion to take place April 14 at 9 a.m.
As WND recently reported, Taitz argues, “H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, who … never proved his legitimacy to the presidency. Therefore the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to sign it.”
Plaintiffs for the case include attorneys general representing the following states: Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Carolina. Virginia has filed an independent suit in a separate action. The complaint lists Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis as defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation of Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
B. Declare defendants to have violated the plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns and protectors of the freedom, health, and welfare of their citizens and residents, as aforesaid;
C. Enjoin defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of the United States from enforcing the act against the plaintiffs, their citizens and residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or attempted enforcement
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138249

Comments are closed.