REALITY BLOGER: WHY THE SUPREME COURT CLAIMS OBAMACARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Why The Supreme Court Claims Obamacare is Constitutional



http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/


Did you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against “Obama-care”?

Just what exactly do you think the Supreme Court is?

Perhaps a reality check is in order here. And for that matter, a little history lesson…

SNIP

The so-called “Founding Fathers” have become the stuff of legend.

They are credited as being radical new thinkers whose ideals were original in their context, and that these ideas created the first free country and a modern republic. And yet, the entire structure of government for the Federal United States, as well as the concepts of individual and state’s rights, liberty, and social contracts, date back not only to the Mayflower Compact, but to the roots of British history and common law, as well as Roman law in the Roman “Republic” and in the Magna Carta, created in 1215. In fact, as it turns out, everything that our “Founding Fathers” did in their declaration of independence was specifically to preserve their “natural-born rights as Englishmen“, which was in fact a perfectly legal pursuit as a crown colony. The Crown of England, in fact, had the same reaction to this declaration and the following constitution as the Northern “States” did when the Southern “States” seceded from the corrupt central government of the United States in the 1860′s – in order to form their own more perfect union and constitution in the South… which was for the Crown to unlawfully call it treason and to take its control back through occupation and military rule.

Why were the colonists of America always, and even to this day, so interested in retaining their English-born rights?

Samuel Adams wrote:

“All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. – The Rights of the Colonists: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

John Allen also stated:

For the rights of the people, which is the supreme glory of the crown and the kingdom of Britain, is the Magna Charta of the king as well as of the people; it is as much his previledge, as it is his glory, to maintain their rights; and he is as much under a law (I mean the law of the rights of the people), as the people are under the oath of allegiance to him… And therefore whatever power destroys their rights, destroys at the same time, his right to reign, or any right to his kingdom, crown, or glory; nay, his right to the name of a king among the people… Shall a man be deem’d a rebel that supports his own rights? — Excerpts from the sermon, “ORATION, upon the Beauties of LIBERTY, OR the Essential RIGHTS of the AMERICANS” preached to the Second Baptist Church in Boston Dec. 3, 1772.

Resolution #2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765, was written:

“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.“

The “Charter of Massachusetts Bay (colony)” issued by the king in 1629 proclaimed that the people of the colony:

…shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.

The colonists wanted nothing more than and insisted upon being treated as natural-born Englishmen with all rights and privileges thereof. This was reflected in every facet of the New America. And it is part of the basis of the term God-given natural rights, as the “king” was considered to be of “God” – the “divine” right of kings…

Thomas Jefferson himself, in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, wrote about the Declaration of Independence that it was:

“…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..”

One could translate this as the freedom of the press, where that declaration was written as an appeal to pity by the rest of the world – an appeal to the court of popular opinion – and a reminder of the already historically established philosophies that were re-worded in the constitution and declaration.

It is also important to make the distinction between natural and political (contractual) “independence”. Independence, as a legal description or term, does not automatically mean free and clear of something as it might be perceived or misconstrued in every day conversation:

INDEPENDENCE. A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior; the United States are free and independent of all earthly power. 2. Independence may be divided into political and natural independence. By the former (political independence) is to be understood that we have contracted no tie except those which flow from the three great natural rights of safety, liberty and property. The latter (natural independence) consists in the power of being able to enjoy a permanent well-being, whatever may be the disposition of those from whom we call ourselves independent. In that sense a nation may be independent with regard to most people, but not independent of the whole world. Vide on of Independence. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

And just what does the 5th Amendment to the Constitution actually say about this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the constitution states quite clearly that your natural rights of life (safety), liberty, and property can in fact be taken away from you with “due process of law and just compensation”. This is because these are actually your political rights enumerated, not your natural ones. This is not a protection from tyranny of government, but is instead tyranny defined! And this “right” – to have your life, liberty, and property taken away from you – is literally in the hands of the government created federal judicial system. As we will see, this is extremely deceptive and problematic with regards to the “justice” doled out by the “justice system”. Thus, the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition of “independence” above perfectly describes the illusion that we all have of our constitutional (political) “independence”. As contracted citizens of this government, natural independence is forfeited and political independence does not exist…

We must also understand that the “Judicial Branch” of this constitution was not in any way new as either the highest court of jurisdiction or of being a so-called “check and balance” of the other government entities. A government creation is not really in a position to monitor another government creation. This fallacy is why we are in the mess we are in today – government supervision and regulation of itself!

Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the “Supreme Court”.

Most importantly to the Federal government and to any government who uses this structure of legal precedent, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged once the government appointed Court members decide on what “justice” is. Therefore, once the Supreme Court decides that something is constitutional – like war, capital punishment, crime and punishment, fines, taxes, incarceration, eminent domain, and other government intrusions into the life (safety), liberty, and property of the people of the United States, the people have no recourse for the taking of their life, liberty, and property. In this way, the Judicial branch serves as a “check and balance” that ensures the tyranny of government is never challenged.

This hierarchy of jurisdiction is called stare decisis.

STARE DECISIS - To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be binding upon lower courts. Importantly, this is to ensure uniformity in the legal functioning of the United States and its corporate structure. This uniformity is further ensured by requiring BAR certification for the “practice” of the now copyrighted public policy that is called “law” in the United States. Civil law jurisdictions, however, are not generally considered to apply, and so supreme court decisions are not necessarily binding. But the decisions of the supreme court are meant to provide a very strong precedent (jurisprudence constante) for both itself and all lower courts.

So what does jurisdiction mean?

JURISDICTION - Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without (outside of) his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2. 3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction… 4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213. 5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

JURISPRUDENCE – The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connection of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents. 1 Ayl. Pand. 3 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 1, 12, 99; Merl. Rep. h. t.; 19 Amer. Jurist, 3. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

The original Federal United States Supreme Court was created within the jurisprudence of the “organic” constitution ”for” the united states of America via Article 3, as the third lawful “branch” of government – a check and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. This organic constitution was very specific, and was meant to be the permanent structure of the three branches of government.

“The term “organic” statute originated from the French term Reglement Organique, which means regulations for an organization or governmental body.

Organic statute is a statute that establishes an administrative agency or local government and defines its authorities and responsibilities.

An organic statute forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization’s body of rules. A constitution is a particular from of organic law for a sovereign state.”

(Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/organic-statute/)

SNIP

Very importantly, this action by and against the southern States by the United States brought out what are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, 15th) and later on the 16th, and 17th Amendments – or what I like to refer to as the legal person-ization and incorporation of the “people” of America from free men into indentured debt slaves, from the years 186o-1871. Or we could call this the corporeal enslavement of the people by turning us into own-able and transferable things (chattels), with the presumed consent of our unsuspecting, purposefully deceived and uneducated, incorporeal souls.

The 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made it legal for government to create them by convicting them of a crime. The people alone, not the government, could no longer own or indenture themselves.

13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.

SNIP

The BAR Is The Court

–=–

This Executive Department is headed by the appointed Attorney General of the United States – whom is required to be a BAR Association member. The “legal” system in this country has been contracted over to this 100% private association called the American Bar Association (ABA), a representative union and advocacy club for attorneys, which all but monopolizes the entirety of the administration of the law and the legal profession with the help of federal and state laws requiring this trust. Jurisprudence, the science and administration of law, has been fundamentally usurped by this private association. In fact, the Supreme Court wont even hear a case unless it is from a BAR accredited attorney or one who has been approved by another BAR member. In short, the BAR decides what cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and the court denies cases that aren’t approved by the ABA.

The under-appreciated significance of the BAR Association in the selection of Supreme Court Justices needs to be mentioned here. Of course, the American Bar Association was formed just after the reconstruction process of the United States, in 1878. Since the 1950′s, the ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from “not qualified” to “well qualified.” In 2005, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush’s nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. In 2006, the ABA gave a unanimous “well-qualified” rating to Judge Samuel Alito, Bush’s appointee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s Associate Justice position.

It is also quite important to note that this private association takes an official, purposefully biased stance on certain issues, making the ABA a politically oriented association of more than significant power. For instance, it has an official stance on abortion – the BAR is pro-abortion. The ABA requires collegial programs to offer “Affirmative Action” in their courses which would lead to an ABA accreditation. And it has an official stance on gun control…

From it’s website called the “Standing (ABA) Committee On Gun Violence”:

Assault Weapons
The ABA supports permanent reauthorization of the 1994 enacted ban on assault weapons.

Gun Industry Tort Immunity Legislation
The ABA believes that the gun industry should be held accountable under state civil liability laws, like other industries, businesses, and individuals.

Lawyer’s Role in Addressing Gun Violence
The ABA believes that lawyers share a special responsibility to help create a just and secure society in which firearms are well-regulated.

Regulation of Firearms as Consumer Products
The ABA supports enactment of legislation to provide authority to the Treasury Department to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.

(Source –> http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence.html)

–=–

Again, the significance of having such official political views by such an organization is problematic at the least. This means that in a gun control case, where all attorneys and the judge who sits on the case making the final decision, they will all have the pressure of the official stance of the organization they are forced to be members of when making decisions on such national issues, and in taking away basic “constitutional” and/or natural rights.

Can a gun-owner get a “fair trial” if his defending attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and his presiding judge are all three members of the ABA?

SNIP

What is the only thing in the entire court/legal system that is seemingly missing from this list? The Supreme Court itself. So let’s examine this body of supposedly independent justices…

The members (justices) of the supreme court are attorneys… BAR’d attorneys, to be exact. This alone is disturbing to anyone who knows the history of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry). But what is more problematic is the very structure of that court and how these “justices” are appointed to their positions of power – the power to declare legislative and Executive public opinion (positive law) as either constitutional or unconstitutional with the self-proclaimed authority of what it claims to be constitutional “judicial review”.

The inherent problem with this structure? The Executive Branch appoints the Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Legislative Branch.

Hmmm… who else is part of the Executive branch of government? Oh yeah… President Obama. In fact he’s the head of the entire Executive Branch, which also makes him the true head of the Department of Justice. For while the president has the privilege of appointing non-elected officials to be the “secretaries” or heads of these individual departments like the DOJ with the delegated authority of the Executive, the president is ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the Executive Branch. After all, he is the only person that was actually “elected” in the whole Executive Branch!

To put this into easily understood terms, the whole Supreme Court is appointed by the office of the president of the United States, who just so happens to also be a BAR attorney this time around. Can you have a separation of powers if the Executive is a member of the judicial BAR? About 56 senators and 36% of congress are also BAR attorneys. The BAR Attorney General was appointed by the BAR president of the United States. The BAR Solicitor General was also appointed by the BAR President of the United States.

You see the problem here?

To call this a conflict of interest is laughable in its underwhelming description of the “judicial” governance as a “check-and-balance” system for this government. And for anyone who is reading this that still entertains the ridiculous notion that there is still any form of “separation of powers” in these “branches” of government – you need your head examined… or you just need to read the following case.

SNIP

Now let’s think about this for a moment… Eric Holder is the appointed head of the Executive Justice Department. Obama is the man who appointed him to that Executive office (with an honorable mention to the senate [THE CONGRESS] who approved him). The prosecuting attorney would also be from that Executive office. The Federal court in which that case would be heard would also be part of the Executive DOJ. The defending attorney representing the DOJ head Attorney General in that case would also be assigned by the Executive Department of Justice.

So how could the people possibly have justice against the President’s appointment or against the President himself, when the entire Justice System is completely under the President’s Executive control? How indeed… the only way would be to assemble a people’s grand jury so that the people could decide! But the executive branch that committed the crime (through the protection of the privilege and immunity of the president himself), as well as the ABA, has the power to halt a people’s jury from ever assembling in the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place!!!

Yeah… it’s a free country! (Que penchant, disturbing laugh again.)

So, what else would you expect from a Supreme Court that was appointed by the president (whose name is publicly attached and associated to the health care bill) – a bill that congress (the house and senate – mostly BAR attorneys) passed through legislation?

Did you actually think that the presidential appointed “Justices” would decide that this bill was “unconstitutional”?

Do you still actually think that these “Branches” of government are in competition with one another?

Corporately and profitably speaking, the “Affordable Health Care For America Act” (A.K.A Obama-care) is very constitutional!!! After all, it contractually forces Americans to be “constitutors” to the insurance companies without forcing the insurance companies to cover all medical conditions… which in the totality of it all are majorly held companies of government through its pension fund and other investment funds. What more could a corporation want out of its constitution as a corporate charter?

END QUOTES

Clif Richardson hits another one out of the park with this expert analysis of Obamacare. Rest of the article is HERE: http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Two Americas... the beast has always been codified by the U.S. Constitution drafted in secret and forced down our throats by fraud and force. Only one thing to do about that...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51729720/SECOND-AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-VICTORY-GUIDE-2-0