The Lawless, Soft Tyranny Of Carter's Second Term
This week saw the coming and going of some major movements on the 2,700 page health care law that was passed last year by the Democrat Party, without debate, without reading, and without transparency that went by the official name of H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ... "ObamaCare"!
On Monday, January 31, 2011, a federal district court judge in Florida ruled that a key provision in the new health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.
Federal Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the 26 state-government plaintiffs that Congress exceeded its authority by passing a law penalizing individuals who do not have health insurance.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," Vinson writes. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not sever-able, the entire Act must be declared void."
On Wednesday, February 2, 2011 the United States Senate held a vote to REPEAL the 2,700 page health care law. Senate Democrats fended off a Republican effort to repeal the law overhauling the health care system, voting down the measure, 47-51, submitted as an amendment to an airports construction bill. So, Senate Democrats voted to uphold a Federal Court voided and unconstitutional ObamaCare law.
This places our government in a Constitutional crisis. For four days now, our 44th Presidency has fail to respond, and has sought to obstruct the intent of the Judges decision.
This excerpted and edited from NewsOK -Alaska gov.: Enacting health care may violate oath
By BECKY BOHRER, Oklahoman - Published: February 3, 2011
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell is asking his attorney general to advise him on whether implementing the federal health care overhaul would put Parnell in violation of his oath of office.
Parnell says he took an oath to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and Alaska. While the Republican governor concedes the issue is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, he says he has a duty to uphold the law and wants the attorney general to advise him on what the duty is after the Florida ruling.
This begs the question; Why doesn't this ruling have every elected official and agency head in violation to their oath of office?
It turns out that there is a federal statute which will place States ... all States in contempt of this ruling if they continue to spend federal money to set up the bureaucracy required to implement the ObamaCare law.
Radio host and former federal lawyer, Mark Lavin posits, "Now the states of Wisconsin and Florida, it appears, have decided that there's no law for them to implement any longer. And they are in fact correct, since the last position of the law as it applies to Obamacare is that there is no law.
And so the states should stop implementing this statue until there is a different ruling from a higher court. If the Obama administration wants to continue to violate the Constitution, to defy a federal judge, and play rope-a dope, then you states have no responsibility whatsoever to comply.
And you insurance companies ... there is no Obamacare law officially. It's been voided. And it is not an act of civil defiance to refuse to adhere to any aspect of it.
The act of civil defiance -- that is, the act of constitutional violation -- are occurring on the other side." said Mark Lavin Thursday.
This is what 18 USC Section 641 states:
Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 641
Legal Research Home > US Laws > Crimes and Criminal Procedure > Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 641
Sec. 641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any
property made or being made under contract for the United States or
any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.
The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price,
either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
1996 - Pub. L. 104-294 substituted "$1,000" for "$100" in third
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322, in third par., substituted "fined under
this title" for "fined not more than $10,000" after "Shall be" and
for "fined not more than $1,000" after "he shall be".
SHORT TITLE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 98-473, title II, chapter XI, part I (Secs. 1110-1115),
Sec. 1110, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2148, provided that: "This Part
[enacting section 667 of this title and amending sections 2316 and
2317 of this title] may be cited as the 'Livestock Fraud Protection
Last modified: April 13, 2006
It is high time for this government of Carter's Second Term/the 44th Presidency of Barack Obama to start obeying the law and stop with their soft tyranny of ignoring the law and legal rulings handed down from our court system.
UPDATE #1: Here is a link to additional soft tyranny tactics of Barack Obama and his administration having to do with the drilling of oil.
Favorite take-away quote from source article - “The government was not at liberty to impose its own will after the court struck down the policy,” Sam Giberga, Hornbeck Offshore Services general counsel, said. “The government, like any citizen, had to obey the ruling, even if it didn’t like it.”
UPDATE #2: This article entitled "Obama Invites Crisis If He Ignores Ruling" from Investors Business Daily.
Favorite take-away quote - "Failure of the Obama administration to stop all activity related to the law that the federal court held to be unconstitutional would create a potential constitutional showdown between the two branches rarely seen in our nation's history. When coupled with the state's refusal to submit to federal regulations implementing a law that has been stripped from the books, our nation is looking at a potentially historic fight not only between branches of government but between the states and the federal government."