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
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!
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