[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Restoring the 10th Amendment Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Apr 25, 2015 Author: Sen. Roger F. Wicker Post Date: 2015-04-25 12:11:49 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 16996 Comments: 72 http://townhall.com Restoring the 10th Arrangement Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Congressman John Culberson (R- Texas). One of the basic responsibilities of the executive branch is to execute the law faithfully. The Obama Administration, however, has no problem ignoring this duty to create its own rules. Instead of working with Congress on substantive, collaborative legislation, the president has routinely opted to govern by decree, empowering bureaucrats at the expense of the democratic process. His misguided approach puts partisan politics – not the will of the people – at the forefront of decision-making in Washington. Our reasons for introducing the “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” stem from serious concerns about the administration’s power grabs. One of the Constitution’s most comprehensive protections is the 10th Amendment, which puts a clear limit on the federal government’s reach. Ratified on December 15, 1791, it states, “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.” Despite these constitutional protections, our personal lives and state authority continue to be affected by federal oversteps. Like many individuals and businesses, we are frustrated by Washington’s red tape and sweeping bureaucratic authority. The president’s big-government agenda lacks transparency and accountability, intruding into our households, businesses, schools, and churches in alarming ways. The 2,700-page health-care law is a prime example of costly government interference, prompting the rise of health-care premiums and cancellations of insurance coverage. The same is true for onerous carbon dioxide rules that hurt U.S. energy independence and ultimately Americans’ wallets. Many of the president’s executive actions have ended up in the courts because of their overwhelming scope. Earlier this year, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction to block the president’s immigration plan until it can be settled in court. More than two-dozen states, including our home states of Mississippi and Texas, have joined the lawsuit against the administration, claiming that the immigration overhaul is a costly and burdensome violation of states’ rights. Our Founding Fathers foresaw the danger of unchecked federal power. In the Constitution, they set forth guiding principles to protect limited government in the new republic. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment, was added to allay fears that individual freedoms could be curtailed by federal encroachment. One wonders what our Founding Fathers would think of Washington today. The onslaught of regulations and executive orders from the Obama administration has chipped away at the 10th Amendment’s division of power, putting more control in bureaucratic hands than that of the people or the states. This executive overreach hardly reflects James Madison’s writings in The Federalist, which noted that the Constitution granted “few and defined” powers to the federal government and left “numerous and indefinite” power to the states. As elected officials, members of Congress have a responsibility to challenge excessive executive action, upholding the Constitution’s time-tested system of checks and balances. We believe the 10th Amendment is integral to this responsibility and the preservation of limited power. Our “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would give state government officials special standing in court to dispute regulations and executive orders proposed by a federal agency or the President. In other words, states would have the tools to push back against violations of the 10th Amendment, helping to restore individual liberty and limit the size, power, and cost of the federal government. For the past six years, the Obama administration has used executive measures to score partisan wins on controversial issues. This tactic denies Americans the right to open and transparent debate, one of the core elements of a functioning democracy. The “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would be an important step toward restoring accountability, protecting the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and reining in the federal government. Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24. #1. To: tpaine (#0) “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.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? SOSO  posted on  2015-04-25   13:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: SOSO (#1) "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.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? 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" [of the States]. In my opinion, the writers of our constitution deliberately made it as short as possible, in order to keep it simple. -- Thus, they would have seen ' of the States', -- as redundant. Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. The state itself has NO power except that which is delegated, constitutionally, by the people. tpaine  posted on  2015-04-25   15:23:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: tpaine (#4) Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. Hardly obvious at all. It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S.. You are certainly entitled to you opinion but that does not mean that it is correct. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-25   17:05:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: SOSO, tpaine (#6) Hardly obvious at all. It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S.. You are certainly entitled to you opinion but that does not mean that it is correct. Obvious enough when it was said and written. The consolidated people of the United States have never acted to do anything, not even to pass a referendum. The Republic of Republics, 4th Ed., Benjamin Janin Sage as P.C. Centz, Barrister, 1881, pages 373-381 https://archive.org/details/republicrepubli00sagegoog - - - - - 373 PART V. CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I. “THE PEOPLE” ARE SOVEREIGN STATES. TREATING the matter in the main historically, or rather by quoting the statements and opinions of the fathers, I shall maintain the following Fundamental Principles. — I. The people are the states, and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government. II. The fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. III. Federal acts, outside of delegated powers, were to be treated as nullities, and, if attempted to be enforced, resisted as usurpations. IV. The federal government is not only without authority, but is actually prohibited, to coerce the state with arms, by legislation, or even judicially. V. The states in the union have the unlimited right of self-defence, even, if need be, against the federal agency. VI. To defend the state with arms, in obedience to her will, is the duty of the member or citizen, and is not treason in any sense, but is true loyalty. The reader will find the corollaries or considerations, involved iu this last and most important point, stated at the beginning of Chapter VI., infra; and he should by all means read them now, for thereby he can see, and measurably appreciate, the scope, if not the pith, of the whole great argument. The last point (VI.) is the citadel of American institutional liberty! - - - - - 374 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON. The States are the People and Polity. Point I. — The people are the states and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government. The people are states, and are sovereign, for they are republics, or self-governing bodies of people. They were never organized otherwise. Nor have they any capacity for political action, except as states; and it is they (and not their government, local or general), that hold, inherently and ab origine, the sovereign, exclusive, and unqualified right and power to govern all the people and territory within them. Just as they pre-existed, they were named and provided for in the federal constitution, as well as recognized as the sole parties to and actors under it; and the identical, original states now exist, unchanged in any particular. And the general government is their agency, for it is made up personally of their subjects, and it only possesses and acts by derivative and delegative power. All the foregoing parts of this work are devoted to the proof of the above proposition, so that I shall content myself here with two or three decisive quotations, fully covering the ground, simply to indicate this link of the chain, while emphasizing and reimpressing the vital truth it involves. Said Daniel Webster, in his speech of 1833: “The sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America, . . . But with us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign, and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such power as they please.” George Ticknor Curtis states it as “the American doctrine” that all supreme power resides originally in the people, and that all governments are constituted by them as the agents and depositaries of that power.1 To the same effect, I quote from among numerous authorities before me, James Wilson’s statement in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention : “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power is in the people, before they make a constitution, and remains in them 1 “Agents” do not act, or “depositaries” hold, for themselves. Hence, Mr. Curtis is solecistic in saying, as he does or seems to do, that they are the depositaries of sovereign authority, instead of “powers” delegated by the said authority. I accept his truth as an admission, and reject his mistake. - - - - - 375 “THE PEOPLE” ARE SOVEREIGN STATES. after it is made. . . . The sovereignty resides in the people, and it never leaves them.” [II. Ell. Deb. 432, et seq.] He meant the people as organized in societies or commonwealths, and not as a nation, for he spoke of “ thirteen independent sovereignties “ as the parties then deliberating and acting. [Mass. Centinel, Oct. 24, 1787; Am. Mus., Vol. I.] I conclude this point by referring to the numerous quotations made heretofore from Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest of the fathers, especially in Chapter VII. of Part I., and by repeating that the people are the states, and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the “general government” is the ageney of the states, by and through whioh they exercise federal self-government. Q. E. D. - - - - - 376 CHAPTER II FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. POINT II — The fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. The use of undelegated power by the federal government, or the individuals thereof, involves their perjury and treason, for they are all sworn to support and obey the constitution, — such oath being, in effect, to use granted, and not use ungranted, powers, — the latter being “retained,” or “reserved,” by the sovereigns as their most precious treasures. And it was never dreamed of that federal officers — the elect of the people, and “the excellent of the earth” — could ever become such villains as to perjure themselves, and thus deprive the people of the great security against usurpation referred to by Webster when he said : ”The constitution, to preserve itself, lays hold of individual conscience and individual duty.” The tendency and end of such federal increment is necessarily to degrade, and finally to overthrow and destroy, the sovereigns of the country. Unfortunately, encroachments on reserved powers in a republic are insidious and unappreciated, until their sum amounts to revolution and the loss of liberty! When the federalizing of the states was under discussion, the great fear was that the general government might transcend its granted powers, to nationalize or consolidate them. The vehement attacks of Henry, Mason, Martin, Lowndes, Yates, and others, were nearly fatal. Every advocate of the new plan insisted on federalizing the states, and disavowed and denounced the idea of consolidating or nationalizing them. For example, the great Fisher Ames said, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention: “No argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an effect which all good men deprecate. . . . The state governments are essential parts of the system. . . . The senators represent the sovereignty of the states ... in the quality of ambassadors of states. . . . A consolidation of the states - - - - - 377 FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. would subvert the new constitution, against which this very article [that providing for senators to serve six years] is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation.” Said Chancellor Pendleton, in the convention of Virginia, in reference to this very objection: “If this be such a government, I will confess with my worthy friend [Patrick Henry] that it is inadmissible.” Similarly spoke others, in all the principal ratifying and delegating states; and no friend of the constitution ever dissented. The advocates of the plan, admitting that the federal functionaries were to be (not angels — but) men of average weakness and wickedness, showed the danger to be much overrated, and strove to ascertain it precisely, and forefend it. They argued, as will be hereafter seen, that there was no power whatever to coerce states in any manner; that the states had the right of self-defence, even against the federal government; that they only delegated power, or bound themselves in union, voluntarily, and could withdraw, or retract delegations at will; and, in short, that state integrity and sovereignty were secure. Carefully Guarding against Consolidation. — Nay, more, out of abundance of caution, the advocates, to prevent possible dangers, or, at all events, to remove doubts, proposed amendments. This over-caution was started in the Massachusetts convention, where, after long and animated debate, it was found that the opposition was likely to prevail. Thereupon a “conciliatory proposition “ was made by the federalizers, through John Hancock, the president, to the effect that the convention should ratify, with the understanding that the states should speedily make amendments. Chief among those proposed was the following: That “all powers not expressly delegated, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.” But even then, though Samuel Adams, the great leader of the opposition, joined Hancock, and both expressed “full confidence” in the amendments being adopted, such were the fear and prejudice, that ratification was only carried by a majority of 19 in 355 votes. [II. Ell. Deb. 181.] And, indeed, so deep and widespread were the apprehension and doubt on this subject, that in several of the states the constitution was barely carried. And Hildreth, the Massachusetts historian, thinks, on a retrospect, that if a vote of the general people had been taken, the decision would have been adverse. This amendment was a mere truism, and was to give emphasis to what already existed in the nature of things; for actual delegations only were put in the plan; and the powers not put in were kept out, and, of course, retained by the commonwealths of people. Hence the amendment was needed only to enable the said people “clearly to see the distinction,” remove their fears, and give confidence and hope. - - - - - 378 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON. This is evident from the debate and the ordinance of ratification [see II. Ell. Deb. 122-177, et seq.]; and Samuel Adams wrote Elbridge Gerry and R. H. Lee, in congress, in 1789, pressing on the latter, “the importance of the amendments, that the good people may clearly see the distinction between the federal powers vested in congress, and the sovereign authority belonging to the several states, which is the palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens;” and urging to the former, that “without such distinction, there will be danger of the constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated government, over all the states, which, though it may be wished for by some, was reprobated in the idea by the highest advocates of the constitution as it stood without amendment” [See III. Life of Samuel Adams.] Numerous evidences of this view could be given. One will suffice. Said General C. C. Pinckney, in the debate on ratification in South Carolina: No powers can be “in the general government but what are expressly granted to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution.” Successively, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York joined Massachusetts in her demand for this great amendment. And it is more than probable that the general approval of it, and the “full confidence” in its being adopted, caused the acquiescence in, and the adoption of, the new system. In the congress of 1789, resolutions proposing the amendments for the action of the states were passed, — the preamble setting forth that some of the states expressed, when they adopted the constitution, “a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;” and that “such clauses would tend to increase public confidence, and thereby help to the beneficent ends in view.” The Grand Result of the Movement may be stated thus: The charge that consolidation, or subordinating the states, was in the original instrument, was disproved. To make assurance doubly sure, that the government was to be always an agency of, and subordinate to, the states; to complete the harnessing and utilizing of the individual and collective personnel of the government; to emphasize their subjection to the law, and their inability to act without express and written warrant; and finally, to make coercion of the states, by their own subjects and agency, forever impossible, they — the said states — amended the constitution within the first few years of its history, as follows — thus putting the people’s seal of reprobation on, and forever preventing, all legislative, military, and judicial forms of coercion of commonwealths: — Amendment IX. provides, that the enumeration in 379 FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; Amendment X., that the powers not delegated to the united states, or prohibited therein to the states, are reserved to the states or people;1 and Amendment XI, that there shall be no federal judicial coercion of a state at the suit of a citizen of any other state. [Please refer to Amendments IX., X., and XI] It is obvious that Amendment X, alone, in declaring that “all powers not delegated to the united states, are reserved,” etc., shows that the several states that delegated must be now absolutely sovereign; that they collectively are the sole recipients and trustees of the powers delegated by the individual states; and finally, that the whole grand federal polity rests solely on sacred international faith — the highest political sanction that is earthly and human; as well as the most likely to endure — if men have the right and capacity for self-organization and self-government. In closing this point, then, I beg leave to repeat, that the fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. Q. E. D. 1 An important part of the perverting interpretation I am exposing, is that which tikes hold of the constitution with its profane hands, right at this point, and says that the powers not delegated are reserved to the nation — as if the thirteen organizations of people could severally ratify and delegate (as all the sacred records unequivocally say they did) and then and there, a nation of people, comprising the said “thirteen,” could ”retain” and ”reserve” those powers of the said states which they, the said states, did not delegate. Of course this is intended as a deception, or it is a gross mistake. Referring to Appendix E for the original forms of the 10th Amendment, to show what the meaning and intent of the people was; what they supposed they were declaring; and what common sense teaches they did declare; I will state, as the result of my investigation and thought, that the conclusion of the said amendment, means as if it read — reserved to the state governments respectively, or to the people of the states, who delegate the powers which are not reserved. See the proposition of Massachusetts, on which all the subsequently ratifying states acted, a few paragraphs above. - - - - - 380 CHAPTER III. USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. POINT III.—Federal acts, outside of delegated powers, were to be treated as nullities, and — if attempted to be enforced — resisted as usurpations. Said Hamilton : “The laws of congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” [II. Ell. Deb. 362.] Said Judge Parsons, “the celebrated chief justice,” as Judge Story calls him: “An increase of power by usurpation is clearly a violation of the federal constitution.” Again he said: “ An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law.” And furthermore he said: the oath to support the constitution “obliges the officers of the several states” to oppose all such acts. And this great jurist and statesman contemplated opposition by arms, if necessary. [Ibid. 94.] Said Judge Iredell, afterwards supreme judge of the united states: “If congress, under pretence of executing one power, usurp another, they will violate the constitution;” and he further asserted that “a law of congress, not consistent with the constitution,” would “not be binding on the people.” [IV. Ibid. 179.] Massachusetts, as usual, caps the climax — she and Connecticut and Rhode Island having, in 1814 — as sovereigns — declared that “acts of congress, in violation of the constitution, are absolutely void.” From this doctrine there was no dissent among the fathers and the states, so that further quotations are not needed, though many pages might be given. Like any other agent, the moment it gets outside of its procuration on reserved ground, the federal government becomes a wrong-doer and trespasser. And, furthermore, it — being under oath — becomes perjured and deeply criminal. Hence, if there be no law for its restraint, it must be repelled vi et armis. And, indeed, Judge Parsons spoke of the resistance to be offered by the states as war! [II. Ell. Deb. 94.] It is well to observe that in self-government, every citizen, official or private, has legal and political, as well as moral, duties, which he - - - - - 381 USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. must personally perform. His judgment and his conscience must decide each and every case presented for his action. His responsibility is individual here, just as much as it is in the hereafter. President Jefferson was right in his letter to the district attorney of New York, dated November 1, 1801, where he said: “I shall treat the sedition law as a nullity, wherever it comes in the way of my functions;” and President Jackson was right in saying, he had sworn to obey the constitution as he understood it, and that where a sworn or other duty was to be done, his judgment and conscience were to be his guide — precedents only influencing his mind according to their character, weight, and applicability. And this was President Johnson’s position, as discussed in his impeachment, that every official, and every citizen, has the right to refuse to obey any and every law, subject only to the danger of judgment and costs being given against him. And when a constitutional question is involved, it sometimes becomes a sacred duty to resist with lawful means, and — in extreme cases — by violence, especially in these times, when fraud and force are vitally attacking our most cherished institutions. With peculiar cogency, Webster’s words close the argument: “the constitution, to preserve itself,” “lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty.” And the lofty phrase of the hero Jackson sounds in unison : “I swore to obey and protect the constitution as I [and not as others] understand it!” The responsibility for the God-given right of self-government being used correctly, is in individuals, and they must resist, either personally or collectively, as need may be. In government, they only act in the latter capacity; but they have all power, and theirs is the ultima ratio. This same conscience, and the same instinct of self-preservation, must be the prompters and guides, in either personal or social action. I conclude, then, that federal acts outside of delegated powers were to be treated as nullities, and —if attempted to be enforced — resisted as usurpations. Q. E. D. - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-26   0:14:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#14) "How far can the definition of Congress' enumerated powers be stretched? As Justice Scalia asked during oral arguments:" How far can the definition of Congress' enumerated powers be stretched? As Justice Scalia asked during oral arguments:................................... "the law shows that George Washington, who signed the law, thought that purchase-mandates were not intrinsically improper. If Congress can regulate a 'well-regulated' militia with a mandate, why can’t Congress regulate interstate commerce the same way?" Incidentally, that's not the only time an early congress mandated that Americans purchase privately sold products: In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...] Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams." So what is your argument again? SOSO  posted on  2015-04-26   16:40:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: SOSO, tpaine (#19) So what is your argument again? My first argument is that you used a prohibited large quote from the Washington Post. My second argument is that nobody was arguing the Obama individual mandate. My third argument is that the article you cribbed from Ezra Klein was dated June 26, 2012. What you overlook in quoting his socialist agenda is that on June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional as a penalty and upheld only under the plenary power to tax. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012* [At 2:] Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. 648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part. 1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be main­tained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The pre­sent challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsi­bility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con­stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15. 2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the indi­vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be reg­ulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As ex­pansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce 3 Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) Syllabus power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “ac­tivity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individ­ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi­ty. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con­gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin­ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus­tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27. nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-26   20:33:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 24.         There are no replies to Comment # 24. End Trace Mode for Comment # 24. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com