Press Release: 14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court.

14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary Committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court. Most of the congressmen served are members of the Judiciary committee. Most of them are attorneys, former prosecutors and judges. Proof of service on every Congressman is being posted on orlytaitzesq.com today and tomorrow. Copies are being sent by certified mail to the US Attorneys’ office-Department of Justice and are being filed with the presiding Judge Morrison C. England. Donations to cover expenses are greatly appreciated. Law abiding U.S. citizens have a right to contact their congressmen and demand that they comply with subpoenas expeditiously.

More information and posted proofs of service on OrlyTaitzESQ.com

Donations can be made through paypal on orlytaitzesq.com or by mailing to

Defend our Freedoms Foundation

c/o Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

orly.taitz@gmail.com

attachment_id=399458″ rel=”attachment wp-att-399458″>URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

URGENT DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION

On 12.12.2012 a legal action Grinols, Odden, Judd, Noonen and MacLaren v Electoral College, President of the Senate, Congress, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barack (Barry ) Soetoro, aka Barack Barry Soebarkah, Governor of California and Secretary of State of California was filed by several Presidential electors and minor presidential candidates. The case number is 12-cv-02997 Presiding Judge Morrison C. England Eastern District of California. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and Deputy U.S. Attorney Edward Olsen made an appearance as attorneys representing U.S. Congress, President of the Senate, Electoral College and Barack Obama. A motion for a TRO (temporary restraining order ) was filed by the plaintiffs to enjoin the certification of the electoral votes for Obama and enjoin taking of the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of the fact that he is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never signed to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS, due to the fact that in his mother’s passport he is listed under a different last name, Soebarkah, due to the fact that multiple experts and members of law enforcement found his Selective Service application and long form and short form birth certificates to be computer generated forgeries and a number of other reasons. U.S. attorneys Wagner and Olsen filed an opposition to the TRO. Their opposition means that each and every US congressman, U.S. Senator, each and every Elector; all 435 US representatives, all 100 Senators, all 538 Presidential Electors oppose adjudication on the merits of above issues and do not want to get answers to the questions essential to the U.S. National security prior to the inauguration. It came to the attention of the plaintiffs that a number of Defendants actually shared the concerns of the plaintiffs and did not know that the US attorneys represented them and opposed the motion for TRO. You are requested to fill out the questioner below and clarify whether you were aware of the facts and evidence provided with the complaint and that you authorized Wagner and Olsen to oppose the TRO.

Signed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Representative/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

US Senator/state

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Presidential elector/state

____________________________________________________________________________________

President of the Senate Joseph Biden

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dated

Please, forward the signed form to the Attorney for the Plaintiffs

Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688 phone 949-683-5411, fax 949-766-7603 orly.taitz@gmail.com at your earliest convenience. Due to the great importance to the National security answers are requested to be sent immediately by fax or e-mail and followed up by sending a certified copy by mail

 

My conversation with Mr. Dennison from SCOTUS blog

I talked to Mr. Dennison, writer of the SCOTUS blog. I called his cell number 301-512-4731.

He was correct in stating that SCOTUS only denied the STAY as Obama was already sworn in, SCOTUS never commented on the merits of the case, never stated that Obama’s papers are valid.

I asked, why did they sent 5 packets back. He said that they only need the decision of 4 justices to go to the next stage of oral argument. I responded that this looks even more corrupt and treasonous, it means that they sent the remaining packets to 4 liberal justices and 5 conservative justices never saw the papers. He stated that if I feel that the high treason was committed, I should file a complaint with the Justice department. I responded that the Justice department is complicit. I forwarded all the info to Holder and he never responded. I told him that in NAZI Germany they also had a Justice Department, Supreme Court, Parliament and judges, none of whom found one single action by Adolf Hitler to be unconstitutional and that is what we have now in the U.S. He said that he knows, that he is old enough to know what happened in Germany, but he can’t talk further.

PRESS RELEASE

Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press release: clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief. Demand for investigation forwarded to Congressman Goodlatte, Chair of the Judiciary Committee of Congress

Law offices of  Orly taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita ca 92688

ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603

orly.taitz@gmail.com

orlytaitzesq.com

02.16.2013

Via Federal Express

Attn. Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE

2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5431
Fax: (202) 225-9681

PETITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

02.16.2013.

Dear Mr. Goodlatte,

On 12.11. 2013   Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, ES filed an application for stay on behalf of plaintiffs in Noonan et al v Bowen et al 12 A 606.

On 12.26.2012 Attorney for Plaintiffs resubmitted her application to the Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred the case to the conference of all 9 Justices to be conducted on February 15, 2013. Taitz followed Rule 22 of the Supreme Court that stated “Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by copies of the original application…” these copies were supposed to be forwarded to 9 individual justices, library of Congress and National Archives.

Clerk for Stays Redmond Barnes sent back to Taitz 5 copies, whereby 5 justices never got the application, so clearly they could not discuss the case during the conference, as they never saw a word of the pleadings or evidence. Taitz submits herein the Exhibit 1, photograph of the original box in which 5 copies were sent back,  as well as the photograph of the stamp. Taitz preserved the box and the documents as evidence.

Moreover, on 02.12.2013 Taitz traveled to Washington DC and submitted to the clerks’ office a supplemental brief with information crucial to the U.S. National Security to be reviewed by the justices prior to the February 15 conference. Taitz talked to clerks Sevgi Tekeli and James Baldin.  She was told to give the pleadings to the guard at the entrance, as the Supreme Court has mandatory screening for anthrax, but the pleadings will be docketed the same day and forwarded to Justices.

The clerks’ office never docketed the Suplemental Brief (Exhibit 2 Supplemental Brief with the date stamp of the Supreme Court) and sent it back, so none of the Justices read the Supplemental Brief as well.

Taitz provides the Judiciary Committee with the application (Exhibit 3) and the Supplementary Brief (Exhibit 2).

Case at hand was scheduled to be heard on February 15, 2013 in a conference of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case came from the Supreme Court of California and was brought by Presidential Candidates: Edward Noonan, Thomas Gregory MacLeran and Keith Judd  against the Secretary of the State of California, seeking to stay the certification of the votes for the candidate for the U.S. President Barack Obama due to the fact that the aforementioned candidate committed fraud when he provided his declaration of the candidate and when the Democratic party submitted the certificate of the nomination  due to the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible for the position, as he is not a Natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The declaration of the candidate and the certification of the nomination were based on fraud, on Obama’s use of forged IDs, , stolen Connecticut social Security number xxx-xx-4425, use of a name that was not legally his use of Indonesian citizenship and based on aiding and abetting by corrupt governmental officials. Most notable example of criminal aiding and abetting was signing by the chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz a falsified OCON (Official Certificate Of Nomination of a candidate) where the usual wording “eligible according to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution” were removed in order to accommodate ineligible Obama.

Plaintiffs provided the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States with over 100 pages of official records, sworn affidavits of senior law enforcement officials and  experts showing that Barack Obama is:

1. A citizen of Indonesia, as listed in his school registration #203 from Franciscan Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia. As  a citizen of Indonesia Obama was never eligible and never legitimate for the U.S. Presidency.
2.  Obama is using last name not legally his. Plaintiffs provided this court with the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham,  deceased mother   of Barack Obama, showing that he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in her passport. He was removed from her passport in August of 1969 pursuant to the request and sworn statement of Ms. Dunham and signed by the U.S. consul in Jakarta Indonesia. As the requirement for removal as listed in the passport,  is obtaining a foreign allegiance, it is believed that Barack Obama Soebarkah was removed from his mother’s passport  when he obtained his Indonesian passport. Barack Obama cannot serve as a U.S. President as the legal entity Barack Obama does not exist. The only legal entity based on the only verifiable record is Barack Obama Soebarkah.
3. Obama does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Plaintiff provided affidavits  from Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona Joseph Arpaio, Investigator Zullo, experts Felicito Papa, Douglas Vogt, Paul Irey, showing that the image posted by Obama on Whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. When there is a question of authenticity of a document, the only way to authenticate, is to conduct expert evaluation of the original document.  Registrar of the State of Hawaii and Director of Health and Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii in charge of the Health Department were obstructing justice and absolutely refused to comply with any subpoenas and produce the original 1961 birth certificate and as such there was never any authentication of the alleged birth certificate. After 4 years of obstruction of Justice, it is clear that the Hawaiian officials have nothing to show and genuine 1961 birth certificate for Barack Obama simply does not exist.

Obama does not have a valid Selective Service certificate. Based on the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio and investigator Zullo, alleged copy of Obama’s Selective Service Certificate, is  COMPUTER GENERATED FORGERY. In this   supplemental brief Plaintiffs are providing additional evidence, a sworn affidavit from the Chief investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the US Coast Guard (ret) and  former special agent of the DHS Jeffrey Stephan Coffman who attested under the penalty of perjury that Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration is a forgery.

Plaintiffs submitted with their TRO and complaint the Affidavits of Sheriff Arpaio and Investigator Zullo and as a supplement an affidavit of the Chief Investigator of the Special investigations of the US Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman. Based on those affidavits Obama’s alleged application for the selective service is a forgery. According to  5 USC § 3328.every man born after 1959 has to register with the Selective Service and cannot work in the executive branch if he did not register with the selective service.

(a)An individual—

(1)who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 453); and

(2)who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an executive agency.

As Obama claims to be born in 1961 (without a valid birth certificate we don’t even know when he was born) he had a duty to register with the Selective Service. A forgery does not represent a registration, as such Obama is not eligible to be working in the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is not eligible to be a President in the White House or a janitor in the White House and it is a duty of this court to exercise its’ jurisdiction to rule Obama not constitutionally eligible.

1. 4.     Obama’s 2009 tax returns posted by Obama himself on line showed him using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed both E-verify and SSNVS. Affidavit of investigator Albert Hendershot provided herein as an exhibit showed it being issued to Harrison (Harry ) J. Bounel, born in 1890 in Russia, immigrant to the United States, presumed to be deceased, whose death was either not reported to the SSA or deleted from the computer system by a treasonous and criminally complicit employee of the SSA. Due to Obama’s use of a stolen SSN he is not eligible to work anywhere in the United States, not in the Federal Branch, not in any other branch, not in the private sector, not even to pick tomatoes or clean toilets. Based on his use of a stolen SSN the only thing Obama is eligible to is at least 18 month prison term and deportation. For that reason alone the Supreme Court of California erred in denying the application. This court has to either grant the application or remand it back to the Supreme Court of California for reconsideration.

 315 MILLION U.S. CITIZENS DEMAND TO KNOW, WHO IS COMMITTING TREASON AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE USURPATION OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY: IS IT DONE BY 9 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HIDDEN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FROM THE JUSTICES

Justices Antonin Scalia in his book “Making your case” p77 described a process of triage in the Supreme Court, he wrote: “Another factor distinctive to petitions for certiorari is that judges don’t like to spend a lot of time deciding what to decide. Indeed in most courts they won’t even read the brief in support of your petition, but will rely on summaries (or on the selection of particular briefs) by law clerks. And law clerks don’t like to spend much time on this job either.”

Unfortunately, the clerks do more than summaries. Taitz, counsel for the plaintiffs submits as Exhibit 3 a recent correspondence with the Supreme Court in regards to case Taitz v Astrue USCA District of Columbia Circuit no 11-5304, where Taitz caught the employees of the Supreme Court actively obstructing justice and tampering with the documents submitted to the Supreme Court.     Taitz provided the court with Federal Express receipts showing packages received by the Supreme Court and signed for by the employees of the Supreme Court, but never docketed and hidden from the Justices of the Supreme Court by the employees. These employees of the court were not appointed by the President, were not confirmed by the Senate, they never took an Oath of Allegiance and nobody knows where their allegiance lies.

This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz  was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public,  media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket. Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case. One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as

Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an

application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same

employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone thatthere is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON. The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.   Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Noonan supplemental brief with the SCOTUS stamp 02.12.2013

Press Release via Orly Taitz, Esq.

H/T Red Flag News

“We don’t need permission to exercise our rights!”

A documentary by Jason Rink: Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

YouTube Description:

What do we do when the Federal Government steps outside of it’s constitutional boundaries? Do we ask federal bureaucrats in black robes to enforce the limits of it’s own power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the several States. It’s called “nullification” or “interposition.” It’s an idea whose time has come.

This just released documentary from the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center features Thomas Woods, Michael Boldin, Debra Medina, Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Kevin Gutzman, Mike Maharrey, and others. In it we explore the history of state nullification, the constitutional legitimacy of the idea, and how nullification can be used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

This is Chief Justice John Roberts confirmation hearing, and then-Senator Joe Biden was questioning him on the “Micro-chip”. Senator Biden tells John Roberts:

“Can a microscopic tag be implanted in a person’s body to track his every movement? There’s actual discussion about that.You will rule on that, mark my words, before your tenure is over.”

For all the prophecy naysayers out there, here is an article- by an Obama supporter- that explains:

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.” Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in15
formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see…

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a “implantable radiofrequency
transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

This Obama supporter ends his article with this:

So will everyone be covered by the public option eventually??????

And does that mean everyone will be chipped?????

Micro-chipping citizens is part of Obamacare! Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on this, just as Joe Biden said he would.

If you follow the link to the quoted article, you will see that the author thinks those who receive the chip are  the “lucky ones”.

Now, believe what you will, where Bible prophecy is concerned, but personally, I would have never imagined Joe Biden to be the one to speak such prophetic words!

Now, is Obamacare the actual Mark of the Beast? There is great debate, even among religious circles, as to the answer to this question. I cannot say that it is, but neither can I say it will not be.  However, this Scripture certainly makes is clear that someday, it will come to pass, that all will be required to receive a mark of some kind.

“And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either  the name of the beast or  the number of his name.”  Revelation 13:16-17

You’ll also want to check out Ben Shapiro’s piece on Breitbart.com where he explains that no on in our government is willing to defend our Constitution.  Now it’s up to you to do it.

The on the  pivotal health care law had been expected to be included in releases this morning, but it was not. The decision is expected no later than the end of the month and may surface as soon as the Thursday press event.

On Monday, three decisions were released: Williams v. Illinois was affirmed, Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter was overturned, Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. was upheld, and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak was upheld.

Now for the waiting, will Americans hear whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act will be deemed unconstitutional on Thursday or will the court make a decision at all before they go on summer recess at the end of the month?

Bottom line – is the Arizona immigration law unconstitutional?  No.  As long as it doesn’t conflict with federal immigration law.

Justice Elana Kagan

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was present to hear arguments about Obamacare. She gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging Obamacare, even though she had cheered its enactment, is an Obama political appointee, and personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court. Federal law 28 USC 455 says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”    [emphasis mine]

During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to its questionnaire that she would follow the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455. And here is some information that Kagan supplied during her Senate confirmation hearing after being nominated for the Supreme Court. She was given a 13 question questionnaire, and she responded in writing: Had she ever been asked her opinion about the merits or underlying legal issues in Florida’s lawsuit against Obamacare, and: Had she ever been asked her opinion regarding any other legal issues that may arise from Pub. L. No. 111-148? To both questions she responded “no.” But evidence suggests otherwise.

So the question is, “What part of 28 USC 455 does she not understand?” She qualifies for recusal under at least three provisions of 28 USC 455. Further, she said that she would follow the letter and spirit of the law. Further, when asked if she had been asked about Obamacare, she said no. Yet her responses were demonstrably false.

When questioning attorney Paul D. Clement (who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional) Kagan said, “The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.” She actually said that!

The Individual Mandate

Yesterday (March 28, 2012) Justice Antonin Scalia asked Obama’s solicitor general a fundamental question about the Obamacare mandate: “What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” Scalia asked the question of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on the administration’s claim that forcing people to buy health insurance is justified by the clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, specifically the third clause, which states: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In the “stretch” department, Verrilli argued that by not purchasing health insurance Americans are really participating in health-care commerce because by not buying insurance they are having an “effect” on interstate commerce in health care. Verrilli’s unstated assumption is that not buying health insurance is an “economic activity.” Scalia pointed out to Verrilli that the administration’s argument seemed to take no cognizance of the Tenth Amendment.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that “…you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

So, following Kennedy’s reasoning, an ambitious and aggressive government, would literally be able to require anything, as long as it was for the “common good.” Where would this power end? Justice Sam Alito asked Verrilli if Congress could force young people to buy burial insurance because everyone is going to die someday. Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli if Congress could force people to buy cell phones because it would facilitate contacting emergency services in the event of an accident. And Justice Kennedy asked Verrilli: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it.”

Justice Scalia wondered if the mandate was confirmed, could destroy the very concept of limited government.

Where are we? With Kagan not recusing herself, who knows. We know that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg are political hacks. All we can do is hope that at least five Justices view the mandate as unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

But that’s just my opinion.

Choose your painkillers - Eric Norris (CC)

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It is not the Constitution. It is arguably, the definitive lobbyist’s playbook on the side of the States adopting the Constitution. Any time anyone suggests that SCOTUS needs to stop legislating from the bench, and stay true to the intentions of the Founders, this collection of documents should be included in the statement.

And in this case, Obamacare is a case of the Federal government overstepping into the realm of State jurisdiction. This is also why comparing this law to the one adopted in Massachusetts is a fallacy. The government of Massachusetts had the right to create that program for the benefit of their residents, as does every other State in the Union if it so chooses. You want healthcare reform, stop crying to Washington for it. It is a State issue, not Federal. Unless, of course, you are willing to take a massive Federal tax hike to pay for it. And yes, this is a little note to the Romney campaign – please feel free to point out what I’ve said here. Romneycare does not equal Obamacare, period.