There is an air of disappointment as the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby by allowing corporations to use "religious" belief to limit the Affordable Care Act to their employees...which in itself has set a dangerous precedence if the President chooses to cave in to political pressure of the SCOTUS in violation of the Constitution of the United States. How so?
Article III
Section 1.This part: [T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The SCOTUS, does not have the power to overturn portions of the Obamacare to satisfy a lawsuit according to the Constitution...only the Congress can. So Constitutionally speaking, the pro-lifers are cheering something on that has nothing to do with the law...what law is that? The 111th Congress Public Law 148 AKA Obamacare.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
According to the Constitution, since Obamacare is the law, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that the SCOTUS has power of judicial review...that is unless the Congress passes a Public Law saying so and we rewrite the Constitution with 2/3 of the U.S. Congress and States voting on it at a Constitutional Convention. The problem is, no one will challenge this and neither the HHS nor the Obama Administration would admit this...not even the Republican. Why? Because decisions like:
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana (2012)
As well as Roe Vs. Wade would be thrown out. Why? Because they were all court decision. Lawyers say that this is under the 14th Amendment of the Law Roe Vs. Wade protects the privacy of the doctor and patient privacy...which law is that? The Fourteenth Amendment?
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The part that says: ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What public law: state, federal or municipal/county laws allows for Roe Vs. Wade or any of the corporate person-hood laws? None. These are not laws, but they are part of the 14th Amendment. Still, there is one public law that would violate the Constitution but according to the Constitution, is legal, or P.L. 77-503. In a nut-shell, the law was drafted after the Executive Order 9066 was made to law: P.L. 77-503 and the law states that the military can create zones banning certain people in certain areas. During WWII, it was the Japanese and Japanese Americans JJA). It was Constitutional because the law was written not specifically for JJA but for any ethnic group.
Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1988 was passed, there is no reference to overturning P.L. 77-503, so in all intent and purpose, the Congress or the President can direct the military to create a military zone and kick certain groups our in time of emergency...like war? Based upon their ethnicity and even religious belief. So with the passage of: P.L. 111-148 or Obamacare, again the HHS can tell Hobby Lobby to pound sand if they refuse, can Constitutionally punish them. I have a feeling though that this will not happen, because, Roe Vs. Wade as well as the corporate personhood laws would make the lives null and void.
Even Newt Gingrich is correct:
But one has to wonder, would we as a society remain silent and allow the corporate interests to win or do we voice our opinions and possibly lose RvW? It would be interesting to see what the Obama administration is going to do...I'm glad I'm not president?
No comments:
Post a Comment