ACCEPT A LAWLESS NATION OR TAKE THE BATTLE TO THE ENEMY

Politics is warfare, and politics is a war the United States is losing. Slowly but surely, we have let the principles upon which this nation was founded fade from the national memory. We have only one way we can win. We must reopen the two hundred and three hundred year-old writings of the men who provided those principles. We must read the Bible. We must restore the beliefs and the principles upon which our nation was found to memory, and we must live them. We must fight for that which Americans once believed.

Want to be a foot soldier in the battle for our nation? Then consider Delegate Bob Marshall‘s suggestion.

Dear Fellow Patriots,

Please read my memo I have prepared to help us fight Obamacare.

Thank you for your time. – Bob

##

To:  Virginia Citizens
From: Virginia state Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Prince William)

ACTION ITEM:  Contact Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and your own Congressman and urge them to file a suit challenging the Obamacare’s violation of the Origination Clause requirement pointed out by Justice Kennedy in his dissent.   A House of Representatives member who voted “no” or who opposes Obamacare has legal standing to file a lawsuit.

Passing an Obamacare repeal bill in the House has some value but it can and will be ignored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  However, the President and Sen. Reid cannot ignore a court challenge to the “Origination clause.” (See explanation below).

CONTACT INFO: Speaker John Boehner, H-232 The Capitol, Washington, DC 20515, P (202) 225-0600,  Fax: (202) 225.5117;  Congressman Eric Cantor, 303 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515,  P 202.225.2815, 202.225.4000;  Fax 202.225-0011:  Your Congressman Capitol Switchboard 202.225.3121 or 202.224.3121.

Because the US Supreme Court claims the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare is a tax and not a penalty, House of Representatives’ Speaker John Boehner and other House members who voted “no” can go to federal court to block enforcement of the new found tax.

Why? Because the US Constitution requires that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”  (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1)

BACKGROUND:  The legislative history of Obamacare, shows that what became the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originated as a Senate Amendment to HR 3590 a measure introduced by Congressman Rangel (D-NY).  This bill (HR 3590) which passed the House or Representatives in October, 2010 by 416-0 actually REDUCED revenues to the federal treasury.  It granted tax credits to military, foreign service and US intelligence agency home buyers who sold their homes because of work related job transfers.

The “Origination Clause” which requires that taxes originate in the House, is not a mere technicality like correcting a misspelled word.  It was placed in the Constitution as a substantive condition to ensure the consent of the governed for public policies and to avoid circumstances such as those which led to the “passage” of Obamacare.

Virginia’s James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers, (No. 58) that, “The House of Representatives … alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government.  They, in a word, hold the purse …  This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

There was serious debate in the Constitutional Convention over whether the Senate should even be allowed to amend revenue bills, much less originate them.  The “compromise” was to allow the Senate to amend revenue, but not originate, revenue bills.  Virginia’s George Mason said that the House “would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2nd would not.  Should the latter have power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it.  We might soon have an aristocracy.”

PRIOR COURT ACTION:   The Supreme Court has stated, “revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.” [Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, (1897)]  The so-called Patient Protection “law” will increase federal taxes by almost $500 billion for the next ten years (current estimates) and many of these taxes will affect taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year.

But Obamacare started in the Senate, a mistake Justice Kennedy noted in his dissent:  “the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people … .”  Kennedy cited a 1990 Supreme Court decision involving the origination Clause, United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385.

In that case, Justice Marshall noted:  “To survive this Court’s scrutiny, the ‘law’ must comply with all relevant constitutional limits.  A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both Houses and signed by the President than would be a law passed in violation of the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a lower federal court and let stand a 1915 decision invalidating the 1914 congressionally passed Cotton Futures Act because the tax did not originate in the House of Representatives (Hubbard v. Lowe).

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH:  The Library of Congress’ Research Service (CRS) in 2011 analyzed the constitutional requirements of the Origination Clause that relate to the Obamacare origination clause violation.

Let your Congressman know you have read the CRS publication excerpts which note:

“… House precedents indicate a wide spectrum of tax and tariff actions that have been excluded on the basis of the Origination Clause … a concurrent resolution reinterpreting a definition in the tariff act of 1922;  bills providing for a bond issue; amending the Silver Purchase Act; exempting receipts from the operation of the Olympic Games from taxation; and redetermining a sugar quota involving a combination of tariff duties and incentive payments.”

“ … in 1807, the House objected to consideration of Senate amendments to a tariff bill that went beyond the details of the bill, and in 1872, the House tabled a Senate substitute to a House revenue bill when it sought to expand significantly the scope of the underlying measure.  In the latter example, the House had passed H.R. 1537 (42nd Congress) which repealed duties on coffee and tea, whereas the Senate amendment contained a general revision, of various laws imposing duties and internal taxes.”

[The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, James V.

Saturno March 15, 2011, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, RL31399, pages 5-6]

Based on these historical illustrations from the CRS and Justice Kennedy’s point that passage of Obamacare violated the Origination Clause requirement, failure to press a suit means your Congressman is unwilling to use the full authority you gave him to protect your rights.

The Founders of America put their lives on the line.  Republican Congressman, and a few Democrats opposed to Obamacare, merely have to endure criticism from liberal media critics.

Thank you for your diligence and help!

Sincerely,
bob marshall signature
Delegate Bob Marshall,
PO Box 421, Manassas, VA, 20108
cell 703-853-4213
Donate to help Bob get re-elected to the VA House of Delegates.

Other Views

Okay. So, Obamacare is Funded with a “Tax”. Then, it Originated in the Wrong House… at RedState says it all in the title. The author, conservativecurmudgeon, just suggests another on-the-fly amendment to the Constitution.

…You know, since were busy re-writing the Constitution on the fly, let’s re-write the Oath of Office, too; something along the lines of “I solemnly swear (or promise) to faithfully execute the Laws of the United States of America, and will, to the best of my ability, ignore, re-write, and shred the Constitution of the United States. So help me Gaia.

 Justice Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game at Breitbart reviews the legislative history in more detail.

If The Health Care Law Is Really A Tax Law, Is It Doomed on Procedure? at Forbes provides information that is seriously incomplete. The bill Rangel originally submitted had nothing whatsoever to do with the final bill that passed. Rangel gave it this title: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. Here is the summary of the original bill that  Rep Rangel, Charles B submitted.

H.R.3590 Latest Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009)       Cosponsors (40)   Related Bills:H.CON.RES.254, H.RES.1203, H.R.3780, H.R.4872, S.1728, S.1790 Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-148 [GPO: Text, PDF]


SUMMARY AS OF: 9/17/2009–Introduced.    (There are 3 other summaries)

Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 – Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) exempt members of the uniformed services, the Foreign Service, and employees of the intelligence community on official extended duty service from the recapture requirements of the first-time homebuyer tax credit; (2) extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit through November 30, 2010, for individuals serving on official extended duty service outside the United States for at least 90 days in 2009; (3) exclude from gross income payments to military personnel to compensate for declines in housing values due to a base closure or realignment; and (4) increase penalties for failure to file a partnership or S corporation tax return.

Amends the Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 to increase corporate estimated tax payments in the third quarter of 2014 by an additional 0.5%. (from here)

Why the Individual Mandate is still constitutional at Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Washington Insider gets the order of events correct. Nonetheless, the “Insider” argues that the bait and switch — even thought it clearly violates the intent of the Constitution — is technically legal. Note the sh-t eating grin on the Washington Insider.

When our President, our Congress, and our Supreme Court do something so blatantly dishonest, we have to ask: what is wrong with our country? What is wrong with us? When will we repent?

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Constitution, Delegate Bob Marshall, Health Care Nationalization and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to ACCEPT A LAWLESS NATION OR TAKE THE BATTLE TO THE ENEMY

  1. Pingback: Supreme Court Might Not Enforce Constitution’s Limits in Second Obama Term – John Malcolm

  2. Pingback: TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? | Congressman Tom Tancredo

  3. Six months ago, (apologies in order) you had made an observation on a blog I posted, that didn’t contain a URL substantiating a claim made by a PAN blogger. (taking a bludgeon to the constitution) this person had responded to my inquiry, and answered with the info to the bill in question:
    Here is the substantiation:
    “H.R.998 — Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)

    SEC. 7. STATE IMMUNITY.
    (a) State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11thAmendment to the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of this Act.

    Section 7(b) explains what constitutes waiver of the right to immunity:
    (b) Waiver- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11thAmendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an aggrieved individual for a violation of section 4 of this Act.

    In other words, if a state accepts any money from the federal government for any purpose whatsoever, the state thereby waives its rights under the 11th amendment.

    I see that as a bludgeon.

    I’m no little bit embarrased that I’d overlooked checking back on this till now. “X”

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Thanks for the feedback, but I am a little uncertain about the context. Do you have a link to the post where I commented?

      State governments have most certainly been bought off. That’s one reason why we have to limit Federal tax and spend powers. Federal monies may seem easy to obtain, but they are not. So we are in debt to Red China, and our state officials are too easily bribed into giving up state sovereinity.

      Anyway, it looks like the bill is buried in committee. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr998

      Like

  4. Pingback: Time for a Constitutional Convention? – John Malcolm

Comments are closed.