Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Court Declares Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional But Fails To Find The Entire Law Unconstitutional

Written by:

Published on: December 20, 2019

While the dog and pony show of impeachment was occurring on Wednesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 vote,  struck down the individual insurance mandate requirement of Obamacare as unconstitutional.  However, the court did not address the entire unconstitutionality of the atrocious Seobarkah-care so its other tenets remain in effect.  The panel agreed with the 2018 finding by Texas US District Judge Reed O’Connor that Soebarkah-care’s individual mandate was rendered “unconstitutional” when Congress ceased taxing individuals without insurance in 2017.

NewsMax reported:

The court reached no decision on the big issue — how much of the Affordable Care Act must fall along with the insurance mandate.

“It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not,” Judge Jennifer Elrod wrote.

Trending: The Twisting Of Language To Deceive The People Concerning The COVID Hoax

The decision sends the case back to a judge who already ruled once to throw out the entire ACA but with some guidance. O’Connor has to be more specific about which parts of the law can’t be separated from the mandate, and also must take into account Congress’ decision to leave the rest of the law essentially unchanged when it reduced the penalty for not having insurance to zero, Elrod wrote.

In dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said her colleagues were prolonging “uncertainty over the future of the healthcare sector.” King would have found the mandate constitutional, although unenforceable, and would have left the rest of the law alone.

Amazing how some judges can declare Soebarkah-care as “constitutional” when the Constitution gives zero authority to the federal government over health care or health care insurance.  And, don’t come back with the argument, “Well, the general welfare clause declares that Congress can pass laws that provide for things as that”.   Welfare does not mean today’s definition used by so many to justify these usurpations.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “welfare” as: noun,  1)exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons;  2)exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states. [Emphasis Mine.]  Since the Constitution for the united States of America is the law establishing our form of government and authorizes government only certain powers listed in it, the appropriate application of the definition of welfare is the one as it applies to States, not the individual person.  It speaks to “the general welfare of the united States”, meaning the cooperative association of States.

Of course, California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the State in defense of Soebarkah-care, promising an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Becerra stated, “For now, the President got the gift he wanted — uncertainty in the healthcare system and a pathway to repeal — so that the healthcare that seniors, workers and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them”.

There was always a pathway to repeal – Soebarkah-care is unconstitutional, period.  The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, issues decisions based on the Constitution.  The black-robed oligarch issues decisions either based along party lines or their personal preference using convoluted logic and interpretations of the Constitution outside the framers’ intent.  Moreover, when Republicans held the majority in both chambers of Congress, not one, mind you, worked diligently and relentlessly to repeal the unconstitutional law.  Instead, these charlatans wanted to introduce and pass their version of government-controlled health care insurance law, which was just as unconstitutional as Soebarkah-care.

It was the unconstitutional Soebarkah-care that created uncertainty in the healthcare delivery system since some areas did not have many choices in plans, doctors left the field through retirement or entered into other areas not involved in patient care, and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a totally non-independent entity, changed medical recommendations for preventive medicine and instituted a “shadow” rationed care platform based on their own demographics.  More on that later.

While Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the court’s decision declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, his statement on the matter leaves one scratching their head.

According to NewsMax, Paxton stated:

“As the court’s opinion recognized, the only reason the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012 was Congress’ taxing power, and without the individual mandate’s penalty that justification crumbled,” Paxton wrote. “We look forward to the opportunity to further demonstrate that Congress made the individual mandate the centerpiece of Obamacare and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.”

Individual mandate or not.  Penalty, tax, fine or not.  The entire fiasco is unconstitutional.  Since the federal government passed this unconstitutional debacle and the Supreme Court upheld it – unconstitutionally, the proper remedy was nullification by the States.  But, States abandoned their duty in favor of receiving federal money.

President Trump called it a “win for all Americans”.  Well, it isn’t really because the entirety of the law remains in place.  It’s just missing the individual mandate penalty.

Enter “legal analysts” to tell the American people how a judge who ruled correctly the entire law as unconstitutional really overreached.

Tim Jost, a retired law professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, claimed, “The opinion suggests that Judge O’Connor went too far in invalidating the entire statute, and that he should have considered what Congress intended in 2017 when it zeroed out the mandate penalty”.

Nice words, but Jost never explained what the intent of Congress was in 2017 when the body zeroed the mandate penalty.  He doesn’t know.  Nobody knows.  And no one in Congress is going to explain it to the little peon citizens who don’t know how to wipe their nose without direction from the federal government.

Judge O’Connor ruled correctly – Soebarkah-care, the entire 2,000-page law, is unconstitutional.  But, no one who supports that atrocity wants to hear that or recognize that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to takeover or hold dominion over health care or health care insurance.  But, when the supporters feel the full effect of Soebarkah-care, like some already have, they will understand what is meant by the IPAB “death panel” and rationed care by demographics.

Let me explain.  Once an individual reaches an IPAB pre-determined age, the “health care” you receive, whether through Medicare, private insurance, employer insurance or Soebarkah-care insurance, is extremely limited.  There are two cases this writer knows of first-hand where minimal care was and is being given because of age.

The first case was this writer’s own father, who died earlier this year.  When he developed a cerebellum brain tumor, we were told the best treatment was stereotactic radiation because the tumor was small, slow-growing, and would eradicate the tumor.  After treatment, he continued to decline.  Multiple visits to his oncologist and oncology radiologist, who performed numerous MRIs, assured our family the tumor was dissipating;  yet, no doctor could explain why he couldn’t walk.  Once he died and all medical records were received, it was discovered MRIs showed more tumors three months after the initial treatment, which doctors withheld from us.  Moreover, the oncology neurosurgeon and the oncology radiologist both indicated a suggested treatment of surgical removal, but the family refused.  Not once, did anyone ever offer that as an option.  In fact, all medical doctors involved recommended against it to us.  Coupled with the medical malpractice resulting in his premature death, the falsification of his death certificate, the falsification of his medical records by oncology doctors regarding withholding of treatment options, and never addressing his increasing inability to walk, one can conclude his age of 84 years played a role in their treatment delivery.  Why can that be said?  Because each time it was being discussed regarding treatment during his various hospitalizations, the statement of “well, you know he is up in years” was made several times at each visit by his oncologist.

In the second case, this writer’s dear friend and sister in Christ began suffering with dizziness and vertigo months ago.  Each doctor told her they didn’t know what was going on and gave her medications to help.  Her ability to drive was curtailed.  She was at an increased risk for falls and damage to both her hip replacements should a fall occur.  Several months passed without any resolution or diagnostic testing to determine the cause.  After much protest, diagnostic tests were done, but it took three months to get the results.  The results indicated she had been having “mini silent strokes” with follow-up suggested, but patient failed to follow up.  Interestingly enough, she has shown no signs of any type of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), aka strokes, not even any transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and no residual effects.  The doctors had the results within a few days of testing.  Upon going back to the doctor for follow-up, the doctors are doing no more than what was being done before, which amounts to nothing.  The tests revealed she suffers from coronary artery disease (CAD);  however, no medications or interventions to help are being initiated.  She is 86 years old, of sound mind and mobility, living independently, still working to bring the Gospel to others, and providing care ministry to those in spiritual need.

Still, think “death panels” are a piece of fiction?  Better think again.  And, without the total repeal of Soebarkah-care and dismantling of all pseudo-laws in the form of regulations and dismantling of the IPAB, restoring medical recommendations into the hands of physicians, these atrocities will continue, get worse, and effect everyone in the US.  When the shoe gets placed on the foot of those who support this monstrous atrocity known as Soebarkah-care and discover what many of us already knew and experienced, it will be an entirely different story.  But, these supporters need to remember one thing – they were more than happy to sacrifice their grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, and other elderly significant others for the illusion of “health care” when the only thing they got was government-controlled health care insurance with government death panels they will encounter when reaching the pre-determined demographic.  When that happens, and it will, they should sit down and shut up because they got what they wanted.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Send this to a friend