(03-02-2014 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote: Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states?
(03-02-2014 11:54 PM)EagleX Wrote: (03-02-2014 11:49 PM)RobertN Wrote: I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.
The individual mandate only passed constitutional muster because the supremes rewrote part of the law. More challenges follow.
it's just a poorly crafted bill. Holes, flaws, errors, contradictions....
Wow. Dawgitall, Robert N and those who "support" the tyranny of this unconstitutional Act have a fundamentally flawed idea of what a Constitution is, what is represents, who owns it, and how it obtains its power of authority in the first place. Go figure.
Perhaps I can be of assistance in these matters:
The view that this law is constitutional (it is most certainly NOT) and that all people "should" forcibly obtain the offerings specified derives ZERO authority from the United States Constitution.
If you support this Act, it means your understanding of the US Constitution is that of a vassal treaty. However, hate to break it to you, but the US Constitution is most certainly NOT a vassal treaty.
The US Constitution is and derives its authority from being a
Covenant Treaty.
What is the difference? Glad you asked. Allow me to explain:
A
vassal treaty, which most people who are on the left of issues believe they are ruled under, is a treaty made between unequals, where one party is the ruler and the other the subjugated.
Monarchies are ruled under vassal treaties. Dictatorships are ruled under vassal treaties. The United States of America was set up in direct opposition to these forms of government. Therefore, the US Constitution came into being only because it was not to be a vassal treaty, but instead the US Constitution is a TREATY AMONG EQUALS. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.")
The people who created the United States of America
specifically rejected and denied the authority of the power and rule of the king under the vassal treaty they had previously lived under, which was of course illegal according to the vassal treaty itself. Thus the perceived authority of George III (King of England at the time of the American Revolution, remember) to go to war with the rebel colonists to confirm his authority under the vassal treaty which had been rejected as illegal.
Now, a
vassal treaty has six parts, see if you can find all these six parts in the US Constitution:
1. A preamble stating the name of the parties.
2. A historical listing of all the good things the ruler has done for the vassal.
3. The laws and obligations the vassal must perform.
4. A directive that the document must be saved and read publicly.
5. A list of peer rulers who witness the treaty.
6. Lists of punishments the ruler and his minions will bring upon those who break the treaty, and the rewards given to the parties if they keep it.
The US Constitution does not contain those qualities. Logically, it cannot, for it is not and was never meant to be a vassal treaty. The US Constitution is in fact a specific
rejection of the vassal treaty form of rule
The US Constitution
is a covenant treaty. It is a treaty between equal parties. The owners of the treaty in the US Constitution are "the people." The treaty derives its authority from the people as a whole, and not by manipulation of the document itself by some of the people, which is what happened with the passage of the ACA.
Since the ACA was, as has been noted, only declared constitutional by effectively being rewritten by the Supreme Court, which it does not have the authority to do; further, since it was passed outside the authority of the explicitly enumerated body which had the authority to originate it in the first place (remember, it was deemed a new TAX, therefore it HAD to originate in the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, which this TAX did not, and THAT IS ALWAYS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, despite the Supreme Court erroneously attempting to make it so (again, I refer you to the erroneous Dred Scott case decision in my quoted previous post above this one)) it is not lawful or binding, as
We the People are not vassals (subjects to the Supreme Court’s independent law-writing authority, which it does NOT have under the Constitution (it merely interprets, but can never write law, although this has been misued previously in our history, it is never lawful) or subjects to the unlawful manipulation of the legislative process as espoused in the very Constitution we live under.
As such, the
only lawful, rational reaction to the ACA and laws created in a similar way (Dred Scott decision, Jim Crow laws, etc…)
is refusal to comply with an illegal law. THAT is EXACTLY like what the American Revolutionists did to begin our country. We are merely respecting their precedent by not complying with the ACA and laws created like it in any way, shape or form, which I believe I stated in the original post to begin this thread.
Now if you wish to live as an American VASSAL rather than an American CITIZEN and reject your rights under the US Constitution, that is your choice. But do not expect myself and others who understand the authority of who controls the government of the country (the people do, not those in power) to meekly comply. I am not a vassal. You do not have to be either.
eta: spelling errors. I am not the greatest typist.
