Thread: Would rights under color of law be violated under Obama care

Would depravation of rights under color of law be violated under Obama care?

If one considers our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment to be an enforceable right against the federal government [forbidding the federal government from exercising powers not delegated by the people under the Constitution], and one also considers Article V of our Constitution to be a guaranteed procedure requiring consent of the people via a constitutional amendment prior to Congress exercising powers not delegated under the Constitution, then it would likely appear that the spirit under which Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law was adopted would apply to every member of Congress who is now working to enact into law the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 if said law were adopted and enforced. The statute reads:


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


It is an irrefutable fact that the American People have never discussed, debated and then given their consent via Article V of the federal Constitution to a power authorizing Congress to tax for, spend on, regulate and legislate into law health care choices which the People of the United States will be obligated to adhere to, nor have the People of the united States, somewhere in the Constitution, given their consent to Congress to enforce the countless regulatory powers mentioned in the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.


The statute above mentioned makes it a crime for any person, which I assume would include members of Congress, who acts under the color of law to willfully deprive any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution. The question thus raised is, does the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 if enacted into law and enforced, deprive the American People under color of that law the Constitutional requirement that the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, must first approve the necessary regulatory powers to Congress over the subject matter mentioned in the Act before it may be enforced? In addition, if the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 is enacted into law and enforced, would the people of the united States not be deprived, under color of law, their Constitutional guarantee that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people?


I for one would find every member in Congress who has taken an oath to support our federal Constitution, guilty of Deprivation of rights under color of law! What say you?


JWK


"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Good post John!

This is just another series of laws and regulations the executive with complicity of the legislative and silent complicity of the judiciary.

I hope you're keeping thes little tidbits handy for future reference, as it would be nice to throw the book at these usurpers when we finally regain control of our nation and imprison those who have created this mess of treasonous dung that we in the end will be responsible to clean up.

This would presume that the president and congress actually care about the Constitution. Personally, I believe this White House is using our founding document to train Bo.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Good post John!

This is just another series of laws and regulations the executive with complicity of the legislative and silent complicity of the judiciary.

I hope you're keeping thes little tidbits handy for future reference, as it would be nice to throw the book at these usurpers when we finally regain control of our nation and imprison those who have created this mess of treasonous dung that we in the end will be responsible to clean up.

It is encouraging to see there is agreement that Congress’s actions are definable under criminal statutes. Now all we need to do is have a couple of Grand Juries convened in a couple of the States and indict specific members in Congress for misfeasance and malfeasance. All that is needed is to get one honorable State Attorney’s General to present the question to a Grand Jury.


JWK

I wonder if a petition would be a way of instigating it under a "color of law" pretense.

The statute could be the preamble to the petition, with an accompanying list of grievences for everything that applies to the statute from socialist security to the the cured healthcare bill. Similar to how the Decaration lays out the grievences against the King, but this would at least carry the weight of law that must be addressed unless the people serving are elevated to positions of title and are above the law.

Just an idea.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

I wonder if a petition would be a way of instigating it under a "color of law" pretense.

The statute could be the preamble to the petition, with an accompanying list of grievences for everything that applies to the statute from socialist security to the the cured healthcare bill. Similar to how the Decaration lays out the grievences against the King, but this would at least carry the weight of law that must be addressed unless the people serving are elevated to positions of title and are above the law.

Just an idea.

When a member of Congress, after taking the mandatory oath of office violates that oath, perjury has indeed been committed. Keep in mind when criminal trials are conducted, those who testify in court are required to take an oath that what they testify to shall be the truth. The oath is necessary to charge one with perjury if they do not tell the truth. That is what perjury is all about. The same applies to members of Congress. The oath of office is necessary to charge a member of Congress with perjury when he/she fails to be obedient to that oath.

I believe most of these scoundrel’s voting records provides sufficient documented occasions to establish they have repeatedly engaged in perjury, at least enough times to obtain an indictment. However, convincing a jury that perjury has been committed would be a different matter. But I suspect if a Congressman’s voting record is presented to a jury along with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the Congressman would have an impossible task in defending their voting record as being in harmony with our Constitution, and thus, the charge of perjury would become more obvious and credible as each recorded vote is put along side our written Constitution.

What is needed is one State’s Attorney General to present the question to a Grand Jury [that's We the People] and look for a true bill in order to charge one of these despots with misfeasance and malfeasance along with perjury!


JWK

Hey John,

I understand you're point. I'm thinking along the lines of We the People instigating it, as we all to well know that if left up to them, it will never get done. Who would be willing to tie the knot that would be used to hang them? The only way for it to be done is by us as a whole or enough signatures collected to force the issue.

As it seems the only way we can get anything done the right way is to make it so through a form of the masses making it so.