ObamaCare Faces Possible Illegality Ruling Again

This newly minted case against the Obama health care Act was published online in The New American on September 17, 2012, as a result of the information furnished the PLF by Sissel, a small businessman and former combat medic who wears the Bronze Star, and believes the ObamaCare law trespasses the Constitution by forcing him to buy something he neither wants nor believes he needs. He pays for his health care out of pocket. That statement from Mr. Sissel should be read again by itself to absorb the powerful message it imparts to every law-abiding citizen of this country:

"It's dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they're just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them."

I rank those 33 words as among the great classics of all time concerning government quotations. Note how they apply, not only to the crisis now in public contention, but to oh so many things evident and preeminent concerning our governing officials at all levels, including nearly all of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches today. The PLF stated in the New American referenced above, "If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked," said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. "When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitution's procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn't asked and didn't address this question in the NFIB case. The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts." Sissel's rebellion over the obnoxious health care ruling applied with strong-armed force on an unwilling and disagreeing public by the corrupt 111th session of Congress, led by the less-than-trustworthy Senate Leader Harry (Extreme) Reid and the then former Speaker of the House Nancy (Draconian) Pelosi, has rejuvenated many soul's hopes that in Congress's big rush for enactment they overlooked a minor detail that could spell the end of that repugnant and divisive piece of legislation. Now we can be hopeful that Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts will reemerge and reinsert his stately position as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and make a declaration on the new findings that if ObamaCare is a tax, it should have legally been introduced in the House of Representatives and not the U. S. Senate. I feel that with our excessively litigious society there surely has been precedent in many laws that have been struck down on much less profound small errors by the enacting legislators. Conservatives were rightly disturbed with Roberts and his decision, given that it massively expanded the government's power to use taxes to accomplish anything it wants. Writing for the website Chronicles magazine, Scott Richert explained how bad Roberts' decision was. "Roberts portrays his decision as a check on federal power - if the Court had upheld the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, it 'would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority,'" he wrote. Justice Roberts owes a bit of conservative support to those who criticized his findings in the first Supreme Court case where he, the Chief Justice, was the spokesperson for the Court majority which designated the 'penalties' in the ACA health law were in fact 'taxes' but did not rule the Act unconstitutional, when it surely seems to be, due to the incorrect procedures in initiation. It seems so fitting that something so apparently inconsequential could be the most fatal of all of Obama's massive number of errors; so numerous in his nearly four years of atrocities against America and be so unknown to so many people who are either brain dead or brain washed by a slick talking charlatan. It could be the first positive thing to happen to America in over four years.