Thread: Time for the 112th Congress to repeal Obamacare and why!

The irrefutable fact is, the American People have never debated granting a power to Congress to regulate their healthcare needs and choices as described in Obamacare, and then approved the delegation of said power via our Constitution’s Article V provision which requires approval by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof “ prior to the exercised of any new power by Congress.

It is self evident that any member of Congress, as well as any federal judge or Justice, who acts to enforce Obamacare and pretends to the public that Obamacare is within the powers granted to Congress, and particularly works to enforce that part of Obamacare under which federal force would be used to enter the states to compel the people therein to purchased health insurance, would be guilty, at the very least, of malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance.

In fact, the enforcement of Obamacare by any federal official would be an overt act of tyranny, whether it is supported by members of Congress or given approval by our Supreme Court because 21 States have officially expressed their disapproval of Obamacare, and therefore, Article V’s requirement, consent of the governed, has been explicitly stated in the negative! In addition, by every poll taken, the overwhelming majority of Americans reject Obamacare as written.

The simple truth is, those who point to this or that part of our Constitution and suggest they have identified the provision under which the people have given their consent and delegated the power in question to Congress, offer their opinion without a shred of evidence to support their claim from the historical debates during which time the contended provision was debated and became part of our Constitution.


Bottom line is, those who contend a provision exists in our Constitution under which the American People have knowingly and willingly given their consent to allow Congress to enter the various united States and assume control over their health care needs and choices are delinquent in producing a shred of documentation from the historical record establishing the [b][i]“legislative intentâ€

Another great post. Thanks for keeping this issue front and center Johnwk..

I am hoping that the various states will join together and act in a manner to nullify any rulings by the courts that go against the will of the states and their citizens. There need not be compliance or acceptance just because a tyrannical government at various levels declares this obamanation is declared lawful. The people have the power and duty to throw off unlawful dictates sent down by corrupt officials acting outside the interest of the people and their constitution.

Any comments concerning rulings from the Supreme Court that act against the interests of the people and the several states? I believe when the federal government acts against the rights of the states and the people of those states, that the states and the people have a duty to throw off and refuse any dictates that would strip the citizens of their God given rights. Am I a radical for such thoughts that would go against Levithan and the minions posing as representatives of the people?

Is it not the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and tyranny?

"This is Michelle O and Valerie Jarrett's baby here!"
Ol' Barry's too stupid to come up with this himself, I wish Issa would start his
investigation at the Chicago Medical Center and end at the WH!

Well, I see the Republican Party leadership is up to their old RINO tricks. Their REPEAL OF OBAMACARE is pure fluff and ignores the primary reason for repealing Obamacare!

The repeal does not mention Obamacare as written is its unconstitutional

The repeal does not mention that the people of the united States have never debated granting a power to Congress to regulate their health care needs and choices and then through their various state legislatures, or by conventions held within the states, approved granting a power to Congress to regulate their healthcare needs and choices

Nor does the repeal mention 21 States have officially stated their objection to Obamacare which establishes the required number of States to approve granting such regulatory power to Congress cannot at this time be met, and thus, to enforce the provisions of Obamacare would be an act of tyranny in view of the fact the people’s consent has not been obtained and confirmed by [b][i]“the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof â€

Johnwk wrote,

So why has the leadership of the Republican Party offered nothing but fluff in its proposed repeal of Obamacare?

Because the puppets of Wall Street and the fed sit on both sides of the aisle.

Question!


If 26 States [a majority of the States] have officially declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and have rejected it, which they have, see: Six more states have joined Florida's lawsuit against President Obama's landmark healthcare law, arguing the controversial measure is unconstitutional., and the overwhelming number of Americans reject Obamacare as written, which is also the case, see 75% Want Health Care Law Changed, and our Constitution requires the approval of [b][i]“the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof â€

So why has the leadership of the Republican Party offered nothing but fluff in its proposed repeal of Obamacare?

Anyone?

Originally Posted by roundabout

So why has the leadership of the Republican Party offered nothing but fluff in its proposed repeal of Obamacare?

Anyone?

Possibly because many don't want to divide the party and they know the majority of Americans and all the new comers won on a full repeal. If they start saying new ideas yet on a replacement before they vote the repeal it could be seen as dividing the party and dems would just say "why not just legislate to add or change those new ideas in".

Reps are commited to needing to least attempt to pass a repeal. But they should have just shoved it through with minimal arguements as everyone knew dems even those who originally voted against would likely not support a repeal.