Obama trying to force another company to submit to Obamacare tyranny!

[johnwk]

.


Obama and his thugs are at it again, attacking another private company and trying to force them to accept Obamacare tyranny.

SEE: Obama Admin Trying to Force Company to Comply With HHS Mandate

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
1/18/13 7:15 PM

”The Obama Administration has filed an opening brief in Newland v. Sebelius, a case a company filed against the federal government seeking to opt out of the controversial HHS mandate.

The Obama brief has federal government arguing that mandating free abortion pills and birth control for private employees is a “compelling government interest” and that forcing Hercules Industries and its owners to provide such coverage against their religious beliefs “does not impose a substantial burden on any exercise of religion by Hercules Industries or the Newlands”

Some of the problems with the federal government’s brief are:

Any government action which impinge upon a fundamental right is “presumptively un-constitutional”. Since our federal government is specifically prohibited from making law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, a fundamental right is established. And in this case since the federal government’s desire is to force a private company to offer abortion pills and birth control under its health coverage which violates the religious beliefs of the owners of the company, the federal government’s attempt is “presumptively unconstitutional”. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.”

Another problem with the federal government’s case is, there can be no federal government “compelling government interest” in forcing a private business to distribute free abortion pills and birth control to their employees under their coverage because any such power to do so has been reserved to state authority or the people therein under the Tenth Amendment. To assume such power is an act circumventing the very intentions for which twelve amendments, including our First Amendment, were sent to the states for ratification:

SEE: Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


By the 1st Amendment it is declared that Congress shall make no law impinging upon the free exercise of religion.

By the Tenth Amendment it is declared that Congress is restricted from assuming the power in question, a power which has not been delegated to the United States

The fact is, the very object for sending the first twelve amendments to the states for ratification was to preserve and protect federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and this is confirmed by the very words of James Madison:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Tyranny is defined as:

“The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. See DESPOTISM.” ___ Bouviers Law Dictionary 1925-28


The bottom line is, the federal government’s case asks the court to conspire and be complicit in an act of tyranny!


JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[Phineas Finn]

Call us when you find a description of the case not written by "LifeNews.com"; I trust them on issues of insurance and reproductive rights as much as I trust you on issues of constitutionality.

[banner1124]

And for the love of God why are all your posts so annoyingly long

[Phineas Finn]

And for the love of God why are all your posts so annoyingly long

Cut and Paste, over and over and over again.

[johnwk]

Call us when you find a description of the case not written by "LifeNews.com"; I trust them on issues of insurance and reproductive rights as much as I trust you on issues of constitutionality.

I noticed you did not dispute anything in the content of the post.


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the profits, gains and income which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

[banner1124]

I noticed you did not dispute anything in the content of the post.


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the profits, gains and income which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

You assume that you actually posted something worthy of actual dispute

[johnpolitics]

You assume that you actually posted something worthy of actual dispute

His constitutional law knowledge is based on google.

The scholar, never will be, who cites the 1st Amendment, forgets courts have ruled against people who cite religious reasons for denying medical care.

Question: Does anyone know if religious groups (Catholic organizations) cover in vitro procedures because if they do per church policy that is a sin.

[Phineas Finn]

I noticed you did not dispute anything in the content of the post.


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the profits, gains and income which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

You say that everytime, and no, I don't -- just like I don't debate abstract art with the Orangutan at the zoo when I see that he's thrown excrement at the wall yet again.

[naive]

Again, anti-Obama threads are immune to the 3 paragraph rule...

Good job!!

[johnwk]

...courts have ruled against people who cite religious reasons for denying medical care.

And our Supreme Court offered an opinion [Kelo] in which it alleged it is constitutional to take private property for purposes other than a "public use" as stated in our Constitution.

Our courts say a lot of things which are contrary to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[johnpolitics]

And our Supreme Court offered an opinion [Kelo] in which it alleged it is constitutional to take private property for purposes other than a "public use" as stated in our Constitution.

Our courts say a lot of things which are contrary to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Off-topic!
Stop changing the topic. You posted about religion and your bring up Kelo which has NOTHING to do with religion!

[bmorepunk]

Tyranny <- When someone does something I don't like and they're in responsible charge
Patriot <- When someone does something I like and they're in responsible charge

'Merica

[johnwk]

Tyranny <- When someone does something I don't like and they're in responsible charge
Patriot <- When someone does something I like and they're in responsible charge

'Merica

My old and tattered student law dictionary defines tyranny as:


“The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution. See DESPOTISM.” ___ Bouviers Law Dictionary 1925-28


In the case of Obamacare, it is the federal government violating the Tenth Amendment and entering the various States to assume a power over the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs.

Tyranny may also be defined as the imposition of law which violates the documented intentions and beliefs under which a constitution was adopted.


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ***'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

And our Supreme Court offered an opinion [Kelo] in which it alleged it is constitutional to take private property for purposes other than a "public use" as stated in our Constitution.

Our courts say a lot of things which are contrary to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Off-topic!
Stop changing the topic. You posted about religion and your bring up Kelo which has NOTHING to do with religion!

Off-topic? I am somewhat amused by that comment since it was you who decided to cite the court by writing: "...courts have ruled against people who cite religious reasons for denying medical care."


I was merely responding to your misdirection of the subject. The fact is, there was no denial of medical care in the case under consideration. Employees are free to buy and use any birth control devises they choose.


JWK





If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the incomes which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

[johnwk]

Hmmmmm. The crickets are very telling.


JWK


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to gain political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the disarming of the American Citizen; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the infringement upon the individual’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than “public use”; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[johnwk]

See: Obama Admin’s HHS Mandate Revision Likely Excludes Hobby Lobby

by Steven Ertelt
Washington, DC
LifeNews.com
2/1/13 12:06 PM


“The Obama administration is expected to release revisions to the HHS mandate today, which pro-life advocates oppose because it forces religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions…… Although the revisions are expected to provide some additional protections for religiously-affiliated organizations, companies owned and operated by people with religious objections to the mandate, most notably Hobby Lobby, will still be left out in the cold.”


Under what wording in our federal Constitution has our federal government been vested with a power to enter the various united States and meddle in the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding medical and health care needs. Was this right not exercised within the various States by the people prior to the creation of our existing federal government? Was our Constitution’s first ten amendments not adopted to intentionally forbid the federal government from entering the various united States and exercising powers reserved by the States and people? To answer this question we need only to look at the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Of those “declaratory and restrictive clauses are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments“:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.



So, under what authority does the Obama Administration enter the States and meddle in the people’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding medical and health care needs not to mention the free exercise of religion?

When will the American People rise up and defend against a federal government which is rebelling against our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted?

JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.