Large Sarge
7th August 2010, 06:04 AM
Class Action Filed Against Obamacare
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to regulate health care. A class action was filed by over 31,000 US citizens (and growing) against Obamacare via Constitutionalist Congressional candidate Van Irion of Tennessee's 3rd district.
The propoents of this lawsuit are not seeking monetary damages, but rather a declaration that the actions of the Defendants are unconstitutional, illegal, and void; a declaration that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and an order requiring the Defendants to halt enforcement of Obamacare.
Three claims are made in the complaint:
Abuse of Authority - The actions of the Defendants are not within the scope of authority granted them by the U.S. Constitution.
Violation of 10th Amendment - The actions of the Defendants violate the explicit limitations in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Breach of Oath of Office - The actions of the Defendants represent a breach of the Defendants' duties contained within their oaths of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
There is also focus on the 68 year old Commerce Clause, which expanded the powers of government over the limits of the Constitution.
The precedent governing the use of the Commerce Clause dates back to 1942, when a farmer named Filburn sued the government over a New Deal-era restriction on how much wheat he was allowed to grow. According to the judicial site Oyez, the facts of Wickard v. Filburn were:
"Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use."
The Supreme Court unanimously chose to disagree with Mr. Filburn. According to the opinion laid down by then Chief Justice Jackson:
"According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, 'it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.''"
Ever since, the government has chosen to regulate just about every activity of human existence based upon the precedence of Wickard v. Filburn. This is what Van Irion seeks to overturn, stripping the government of enormous power and rendering quite a lot of legislation unconstitutional.
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to regulate health care. A class action was filed by over 31,000 US citizens (and growing) against Obamacare via Constitutionalist Congressional candidate Van Irion of Tennessee's 3rd district.
The propoents of this lawsuit are not seeking monetary damages, but rather a declaration that the actions of the Defendants are unconstitutional, illegal, and void; a declaration that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and an order requiring the Defendants to halt enforcement of Obamacare.
Three claims are made in the complaint:
Abuse of Authority - The actions of the Defendants are not within the scope of authority granted them by the U.S. Constitution.
Violation of 10th Amendment - The actions of the Defendants violate the explicit limitations in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Breach of Oath of Office - The actions of the Defendants represent a breach of the Defendants' duties contained within their oaths of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
There is also focus on the 68 year old Commerce Clause, which expanded the powers of government over the limits of the Constitution.
The precedent governing the use of the Commerce Clause dates back to 1942, when a farmer named Filburn sued the government over a New Deal-era restriction on how much wheat he was allowed to grow. According to the judicial site Oyez, the facts of Wickard v. Filburn were:
"Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use."
The Supreme Court unanimously chose to disagree with Mr. Filburn. According to the opinion laid down by then Chief Justice Jackson:
"According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, 'it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.''"
Ever since, the government has chosen to regulate just about every activity of human existence based upon the precedence of Wickard v. Filburn. This is what Van Irion seeks to overturn, stripping the government of enormous power and rendering quite a lot of legislation unconstitutional.