How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?

For Love of God and Country


How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?


Limit Federal spending through nullification and state escrow accounts

Diane Rufino
August 24, 2013

The government has no legitimate powers that were not initially granted to it under the Constitution. There is no provision anywhere, nor is there any implied right under the Declaration of Independence or any other social compact theory, which permits the government to assume any more powers than originally granted to it. There is, of course, only one way to legitimately alter the Constitution and hence alter the function and scope of government, and that is through Article V's amendment process. But only the states can approve those amendments.

As we all know, the only amendments which fundamentally altered the federal government were the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

The US Constitution is a "compact" (a social compact) among the states. It was an agreement among the states, fortified by their ratification, on how they would be managed and served by a common government. The Constitution created a Union of states ("united" States) and NOT the "United States." The Civil War would change that.

In the Constitution, the States delegated certain powers to the federal government, reserving all others to itself. And even with respect to those enumerated powers, there was clarification and limitation (as discussed in the state ratifying conventions, as well as in the very words, phrasing, and limiting clauses in the documents. For example, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which was meant to breathe life into the powers vested in the government under the Constitution, mean just that... "NECESSARY." As it turns out, the Supreme Court would quickly re-define "necessary" to mean "convenient"). With respect to the taxing power, the states clearly and freely delegated to the government the power to tax and spend. However, the intent was that Congress can only tax and spend with regard to the seventeen specifically enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Additionally, the "General Welfare" clause was not meant as a separate grant of power as it is assumed today. Yet, we've seen how the government, through independent-minded justices on the Supreme Court, has used all these "limiting clauses" (including the Commerce Clause and now the taxing power) to grow government and to provide justification for every type of policy, program, or legislation that it wanted to enact. Never mind that the Federalist Papers were absolutely clear on the limited nature of the federal government. And all along, the States have refused to stand up, question, challenge, or nullify improper federal spending or improper federal regulation.

At this point, with respect to the taxing power alone, the federal government has plenary power to tax and spend. It has the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted in 1819 to be a blank check to the government to do pretty much anything it finds "convenient" to further its power or enable its powers to tax and spend. The healthcare decision enlarged the government's taxing power further, allowing government to tell Americans what it must purchase and punishing them (by taxing them) for not conducting themselves as the government demands. And so the result now is a government that taxes and spends for pretty much anything it wants. Most of the spending is for unconstitutional purposes which means that taxing for such spending is also unconstitutional.

Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

Congress has been taking money from the citizens of states, and then offering that money back to states on the condition that legislators follow the will of Congress. Using these federal grants accompanied by mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than truly independent republican governments.

A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat the social engineering and to protect peoples' rights, we have missed one of the most important principles of the American founding.

Can we trust government to reverse course? Could we trust it to police itself and divest those improper spending powers to state local governments where they can be used to responsibly and directly to benefit their own people? The answer is no.

And that is why it must fall to the States to address the federal budget and use Nullification to enforce those changes.
The Solution


The solution I propose is called the "State Escrow Account" remedy. And yes, it's based on the doctrine of Nullification.

Again, the government can only tax and spend for constitutional objects. It would seem to me that a lot of its spending is on unconstitutional objects, such as state grants (using money to do what it can't do constitutionally, under the law of contracts) and education grants (such as Common Core; education is not a government matter; it's a state function). If the federal government has so much money that it can spend on unconstitutional objects/projects, then clearly it is taxing the people TOO MUCH. If the states had ambition under the 10th Amendment and wanted to stand up for the People's rights to keep their income, they should band together and challenge every bit of government spending. They should seek to have the federal government collect only revenue that goes to constitutional functions and NONE to bribe the states. That extra money should go to the states. This way the states can legislate more responsibly to their own people and not according to government mandates and a one-size-fits-all strategy. I would also set up State Escrow Accounts. For example, all taxpayers who live in North Carolina would send their federal income tax forms to a state treasury office. The funds would go into a state Escrow Account. That office would review the federal budget and decide what percentage of spending goes to constitutional matters and what percentage goes to unconstitutional ones. The NC Treasury Department would send funds on to the US Treasury Department MINUS the percentage that represents unconstitutional federal spending. Those extra funds in the state escrow account would either stay there to fund our own education, highways, etc or would be refunded back to the taxpayer. In this way, the proper power structure would be restored (government is greatest where it is closest to the people), the States would be a lot stronger (as intended), they would be more responsive to the people, we would be free from the "one-size-fits-all" model that is ruining this country, many of the onerous regulations that are killing businesses and the free market would be repealed, the economy would grow and businesses would flourish, money would be put back into the pockets where it is spent the wisest - with the people who actually earn it, and America's proclaimed notion of Liberty would be secure. States would be a lot more responsive to its people and they would be in a better position to protect their inalienable rights, as well as all the other rights associated with a free and sovereign people, if they were free from the financial bondage to the federal government. Individuals would be able to exercise their inalienable rights - to Life, Liberty, and Property - more freely, if they were free from legalized plunder and their financial bondage to the federal government.

Who Has the Right to Determine the Extent of Government?

The Declaration of Independence answered that question clearly, concisely, and before a "candid world."

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
The Declaration proclaims that America stands for the notion that the rights and liberties of the Individual, under Natural Law and Nature's God, are paramount to any self-serving designs of government. And should that day come when the government assumes a position that threatens the liberty of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that government.

The Constitution embodies the principles articulated in the Declaration. It created a limited government, one organized around the interests of the States and the People and provided for their full participation. Through the Preamble of the Constitution itself and then the preamble to the Bill of Rights, we see the intent for limited nature of government in our lives. The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 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." You can't ask for a stronger expression of intent than that.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Again, there can be no confusion about the intent of the States to limit the powers of the federal government and to prevent it from trying to pervert itself.

In other words, our Founding Fathers built a government whose purpose was not to control the people, but one that the people controlled. The government's purpose was not to take or usurp the people's sovereignty, but to provide only those things that the people could not provide for themselves, such as a standing army to protect them, uniform currency and commerce, a uniform immigration and naturalization policy, and relations with foreign nations. They stipulated that the people's sovereign rights had to remain with the people. The Founding Fathers made sure to grant to the People the ultimate authority over how they intended to be governed. It is the People who have power over their government. Unfortunately, collusion among decision-makers in Washington DC, as well as the three branches of government, to support party ideology over the preservation of individual liberty, has served to by-pass constitutional checks and balances and has acted to render the voice of the People as moot. Not only has government legislated in a way that frustrates their liberty interests but it has also made sure it controls the means to brainwash them and to keep them from educating themselves in the manner that would best preserve that liberty.

The People, therefore, have the right to determine the extent of their government. If the government refuses to abide by the limits of the Constitution and continues to loot the American people to pay for objects and projects that are unconstitutional, then the proper recourse is with the People (to alter their government) or with the States (where much of the peoples' powers are deposited). If the People can't "alter their government" through the only avenue open to them, which is the ballot box, then the States must interpose and Nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including unconstitutional elements of the budget and unconstitutional exercises of the purse strings.

Remember the oath of office for all branches of the federal government and for all representatives and officials in state government calls for support and allegiance to the US Constitution... NOT the federal government. The Constitution is the PEOPLE's document. It protects them from the reaches of government. So in effect, ALL government representatives and officials are OBLIGATED to respect We the PEOPLE... and our right to be left alone by government.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 abuses of the rights of the American colonists by King George and the British Parliament. It states: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Today, we should be shouting: "A government whose character is marked by the actions of a tyrant is UNFIT to rule a free people."


http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-08-24-268500.112112-How-about-applying-nullification-to-the-entire-federal-budget.html

Commerce Power: “To Regulate,” not “Prohibit”

The Tenth Amendment Center

In a law review article  titled “To Regulate, Not Prohibit: Limiting the Commerce Power,” New York University Law Professor Barry Friedman, and 2011 New York University Law graduate, Genevieve Lakier take on the daunting task of reasserting the historic and genealogical lineage of the Commerce Clause from its inception through the country’s 237 years of existence as a federal republic.

This thorough and thoughtful 67 page treatise is broken down into three distinct eras. In the first section, the authors cite numerous uses and misuses of commerce power, including a legal concept allowing the federal government to prohibit commerce of certain goods or fungible items.

The Commerce Clause is found at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and declares: the congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Lawyers and laity alike generally assume the Congress’s power “to regulate” commerce, includes the authority to prohibit it. Professor Friedman points out that historically, this is not how the Commerce Clause has always been understood and practiced.

“At the Founding, and roughly 115 years thereafter, the dominant view was that Congress did not possess the authority to ban goods merely because they crossed state lines.”

CONTINUED:  Commerce Power: “To Regulate,” not “Prohibit”

What if the government rejects the Constitution?

What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation -- in some cases the same human beings -- that wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don't regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?

What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people's backs?


What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us ObamaCare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don't want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?


What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?


What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation that Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?


What if Congress believes that it can spend tax dollars on anything it pleases and tie any strings it wants to that spending? What if Congress uses its taxing and spending power to regulate anything it wants to control, whether authorized by the Constitution or not? What if anyone other than members of Congress offered state legislatures cash in return for favorable legislation? What if Congress wrote laws that let it break laws that ordinary people would be prosecuted for breaking?


What if the Declaration of Independence says that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed? What if the government claims to derive powers from some other source that it will not -- because it cannot -- name? What if we never gave the government the power to spy on us, to print worthless cash, to kill in our names, to force us to buy health insurance or to waste our money by telling us that exercise is good and sugar is bad?


What if we never gave the government the power to bribe the poor with welfare or the middle class with tax breaks or the rich with bailouts or the states with cash? What if we don't consent to what has become of the government? What if the Constitution has been tacitly amended by the consent of both political parties, whereby instead of ratifying amendments, all three branches of government merely look the other way when the government violates the Constitution? What if the president cannot constitutionally bomb whatever country he wants? What if the Congress cannot constitutionally exempt its members from the laws that govern the rest of us? What if the courts cannot constitutionally invent a right to kill babies in the womb?


What if the federal government is out of control, no matter which party controls it? What if there is only harmony on Capitol Hill when government is growing and personal liberty is shrinking? What if the presidential race this fall will not be between good and evil, between right and left, between free markets and central planning or even between constitutional government and Big Government; but only about how much bigger Big Government should get?

What if enough is enough? What do we do about it? What if it's too late?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit http://www.creators.com/

SOURCE:  http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A354620&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

The Patriot Post--Voice of Essential Liberty!

Monday, December 20, 2010


The Foundation

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison

Liberty

One reason the Founding Fathers decided to break with England was their dismay with England's mercantilist system, which generally required colonists to purchase manufactured goods from, or through, England rather than produce them in the colonies. Hatred for this system inspired a Virginia farmer named George Washington to try to convert his colonial farm into a self-sufficient unit -- where ... he could produce and consume what he wanted without trading with others, especially those in England. The Framers, who had not forgotten English mercantilism, wrote the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to create a free-trade zone among the American states. Their aim was to facilitate freedom, not restrict it. ... [Judge Henry] Hudson, while carefully staying within the Supreme Court precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, correctly understood that the issue raised by Obamacare's individual mandate ... is freedom itself. 'The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,' Hudson wrote in his opinion. ... And you thought liberals believed in freedom of choice?" --columnist Terence Jeffrey

Government


"Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation -- 'those dead, old, racist white men.' Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students. The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government. Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'" --economist Walter E. Williams

READ THE ENTIRE DIGEST:  http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/12/20/brief/

Pajamas Media » Washington’s Self-Anointed Deities

Pajamas Media » Washington’s Self-Anointed Deities

Morning Bell: The Limitless Power of the Obama-Kagan Congress

This Sunday, our nation will celebrate Independence Day, which commemorates the Continental Congress’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration preamble reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The fact that we as a nation came together every year to celebrate this document might lead many Americans to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take the Declaration of Independence into account when they are interpreting the Constitution. Elena Kagan is not one of those Americans. Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) yesterday, Kagan admitted: “To be honest with you, I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”




And Kagan’s disturbing indifference to the existence of natural rights is just one of the many frightening revelations her confirmation hearing has produced. On Tuesday, Sen. Coburn pressed Kagan about the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ power to control what Americans do:



Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?



Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law



Coburn: Yeah, but I got one that’s real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I’m not going to mention which it is.



Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.



The law Coburn was referring to, of course, was President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment: the Obamacare provision that forces all Americans to buy health insurance. But Jefferson and the other Constitution framers designed the document to protect our “unalienable Rights” by limiting the power of Congress. They designed an ingenious system of checks and balances that divides state and federal authority in the hope of preventing any one government from exerting too much control over a free people. Specifically, Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” and section 8 of Article I (referred to by Sen. Coburn above as the Commerce Clause), grants Congress the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has always understood that, taken together, these clauses put some legislative powers beyond Congress’ reach.



But Kagan has now testified that not only does she find the Founders’ concept of “unalienable Rights” irrelevant to Constitutional interpretation, but she also declined to say if the Constitution prevents Congress from telling Americans what to eat. Her evasive non-response to Coburn’s Commerce Clause inquiry shows that she would indeed be a rubber-stamp for almost any part of the Obama agenda that Congress enacts. So if the Obama administration convinced Congress (and this is a total hypothetical) that the survival of a single car company, let’s say Chrysler, was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation’s economy, and Congress then passed a law forcing all Americans to buy a Chrysler car, Kagan would find such a law, while perhaps “dumb,” perfectly constitutional. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.



The leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that the Obamacare individual mandate is extremely vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court. That is why they have spent so much of the hearing trying to redefine what “judicial activism” is. As Heritage Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Robert Alt will testify today, the Court is not committing “judicial activism” every time it finds that a law violates the Constitution. Judicial activism is not a function of outcomes, but one of interpretation. Instead, it occurs when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to uphold, or strike down, a statute or other government action which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.



Kagan came to the committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from this White House to apply the law as it is written, and dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.



Quick Hits:



•Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) used her time questioning Elena Kagan to ask: “I keep wanting to ask you about the famous camp of Edward vs. Jacob or the vampire vs. the werewolf.”

•According to the CBO, the federal debt will represent 62% of the nation’s economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since World War II.

•House Democrats have attached $10 billion in spending for government union jobs to the Afghanistan war funding bill.

•U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, suggesting expectations of a big drop in the government’s upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.

•A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
 
Reprinted from:  http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/01/morning-bell-the-limitless-power-of-the-obama-kagan-congress/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Liberty in Action: First Private Lawsuit Challenging ObamaCare Filed in Mississippi

Liberty in Action: First Private Lawsuit Challenging ObamaCare Filed in Mississippi
Posted By K. Douglas Lee On April 2, 2010

Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a class action lawsuit today, Good Friday 2010, challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “ObamaCare” and a variety of other less polite euphemisms.

We believe that the PPACA is DOA for several equally important reasons, but only one of which has received much attention. Most folks know by now that Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause to justify this massive expansion of governmental power. Our “Good Friday” Complaint spends many pages discussing how Congress has clearly exceeded the limits of its power under the Commerce Clause. I strongly urge you to read the entire Complaint. What I really want to point out, though, are some things you probably don’t know, and definitely will not like — even if you consider yourself a “Liberal.”


Consider for a moment that you have now been commanded to enter into a contract with an insurance corporation, whether you want to or not, whether you need to or not. Yes, there are many who actually choose to be uninsured. For most, it is simply an economic decision that often works out to the uninsured’s economic advantage. Not always, of course, but that’s the beauty of liberty — you get to make the decisions, and live with the good or bad that comes of them.

Now that you realize that a dictate has been handed down, compelling you to contract with an insurance corporation or else, consider what you have to do. It’s not like you can go to a vending machine, swipe your debit card and pull out a policy. You still have to apply. True, they cannot turn you down, but so what? You still have to give a big, scary, mean corporation a lot of private medical and psychological information about yourself and your family. Then, forever after, the insurance corporation’s bureaucrats will gather this private information without even bothering to let you know. As our Complaint states:

Moreover, compelling Plaintiffs to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting party. Specifically, by requiring Plaintiffs to abide by the Act’s individual mandate, Congress is also compelling Plaintiffs to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress’s individual mandate will, by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Plaintiffs’ present and future medical information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Plaintiffs should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical information.

Do you have an STD? How many abortions have you had? How about a sexual dysfunction? Did your father or mother have cancer? Do you have a birth defect? Have you ever been prescribed drugs for a mental condition, such as anxiety or depression? There are many reasons people have concerns over their medical privacy. The desire to keep one’s medical history private is universal.

Privacy, choice, and Roe v. Wade
Medical privacy is so important that we have enshrined it as fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution — just ask the Supreme Court, which even allows women to kill unborn children in order to protect their constitutional right to medical privacy.

If you want health insurance badly enough, you’ll probably choose to give up your medical privacy rights to an insurance corporation. But perhaps you are indifferent to buying health insurance in the first place, and really, you don’t want it in writing anywhere that you’ve had two abortions, or eat Viagra like popcorn. You’ve decided that it would just be better to pay for your healthcare directly and avoid the entire insurance hassle. What’s wrong with this choice? Nothing, if you believe in the concept of liberty.

Forcing citizens to enter into a contract to buy insurance is a bit different than requiring them to buy a loaf of bread. Congress cannot conceivably be said to have the power to force you to buy a loaf of bread, even though that would indeed have some effect on interstate commerce. Think about how much more egregious a denial of liberty it is to force people to contract with an insurance corporation. Those contracts create rights and obligations for both parties, but guess who gets to write the contract? Hint: insurance corporation lawyers. It’s an actual contract that you will actually be forced to sign by your government. You will not have any bargaining power to alter the contract; it’s not even a “take it or leave it” situation, it’s “take it or face the legal consequences.”

Which brings us to another important but poorly understood issue: Just what are the consequences? Exactly how will the mandate will be enforced? Unfortunately, this is something that none of us really know. Congress states outright that there will be a “penalty” assessed for citizens who disobey their command. These lawbreakers will have to pay an amount that will be assessed as a tax. Yes, we all know Congress has the power to tax, but remember, Congress itself has called this tax a “penalty.” As we explain in our Complaint,

Central to the definition of penalty is the “idea of punishment” – “[p]unishment imposed on a wrongdoer . . . in the form of imprisonment or fine. Though usually for crimes, penalties are also sometimes imposed for civil wrongs.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1153 (7th ed. 1999).

Yes, you wrongdoers who decide to go without insurance will be punished by the federal government. You will have to pay a special tax that applies only to wrongdoers like you. The Complaint points out that this “constitutes a capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census data,” which is unconstitutional in itself. But this does not make great bedtime reading, so I’ll let you in on a secret: It’s a tax that they cannot make you pay.

A plain reading of the individual mandate shows that Congress first sets forth a penalty for failure to buy insurance, then says that regardless of anything written anywhere else in any other law, there can be no criminal penalty:

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of


any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed


by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any


criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

Then, to make it even very difficult (perhaps impossible) to civilly enforce the penalty/tax, Congress denied the government any power to file liens or levy any wrongdoer’s property:

‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary

shall not—

‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property

of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the

penalty imposed by this section, or

‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to

such failure.’’.

If the feds cannot levy or lien you, then what can they do to get your money? Write scary letters to you? Just what happens to the authority of the federal government when people laugh at these scary letters?

What indeed. We have demanded in our Complaint that if the government has some trick up its sleeve, that we be told what it is. If we are to be punished for not buying something, we deserve to know ahead of time what that punishment might be. That’s not just an old American tradition, it’s a constitutional principle.

The alternative, of course, is for the feds to admit that there is no enforcement mechanism. Consider what that means for a minute: the pièce de résistance of the PPACA is the individual mandate. Without an enforcement mechanism, the individual mandate fails; without the mandate, the entire legislative act fails utterly.


If the government admits, or the federal judiciary declares, that there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, millions will be free to ignore it. We believe, though, that the lack of an enforcement mechanism makes the individual mandate unconstitutional for reasons that we will discuss further with the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

A call to service

We’ve got Mississippi covered. Now we need for you to do your part to take back your liberty. This lawsuit can be filed in every state in the greatest nation on earth, and it should be. Wherever this abomination applies, there is at least one federal court, often many. Find them, take our lawsuit, change the names and file it. Add to it if you have more arguments. If you are serious about doing so and need information, we are easy to find.

We have much more to say about the unconstitutionality of this abominable act of Congress, and we’re looking forward to your comments. God bless America!

Full Complaint:  http://biggovernment.com/kdlee/2010/04/02/liberty-in-action-first-private-lawsuit-challenging-obamacare-filed-in-mississippi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo