Obamacare-We Have No Choice? A Letter to Your Representative

Has your representative responded to your concerns over Obamacare with the suggestion that there is no choice but to submit to this federal Act because the Supreme Court or the Supremacy Clause requires it? If so, he has just indicated his Constitutional ignorance. DO NOT ACCEPT this as the final word on this matter. DEMAND your representative engage in a rational dialogue with you.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; Obamacare is NOT about healthcare, it is about accepting an unlimited federal government and the destruction of the Constitution. Require your representative to make a choice.

Holding our elected employees accountable means engaging in a proper dialogue and requiring reasoned and intelligent responses. Don’t quit after the first letter. Keep pushing them into accountability and then follow that accountability with consequences.

Here is my suggested response to this ignorance that will sell our children into slavery. IF your representative refuses to respond, send it again and again. IF your representative still refuses to respond, he has admitted to the undeniable conclusions in this letter and CANNOT BE REELECTED; even if that means the opponent wins. How can I say this? “Because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~Winston Churchill.

Dear Representative,

I have received your response to my concerns over the PPACA. You have stated that you believe we are bound by this federal Act because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires it and the Supreme Court of the United States, in their ruling, demands it. Your understanding of this Act deeply concerns me. As a constituent who is responsible for the position you hold, I expect you to maintain a dialogue with me on this issue and will not accept your explanation as the final word in this matter.

When the PPACA was first passed, there was an immediate alarm heard across the nation. The primary concern that fueled the multiple law suits against this Act, of whom you were a supporter, was that if the federal government can force the States and its people to purchase healthcare, what can’t they force us to purchase? Have we forgotten that valid argument? Has the Supreme Court’s ruling somehow altered that conclusion? Surely the Supremacy Clause existed when we felt this alarm. What has changed? Nothing. The Supreme Court did nothing in their ruling to eliminate the inescapable reality that the federal government now has no limitation in binding its citizens to purchase mandated objects. The Supremacy Clause still requires the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, over all other laws and treaties.

Does the Supremacy Clause create a situation where federal law is supreme over the Constitution? If it did, it would create a paradox. How could it be that a federal government, defined and limited by the Constitution, could pass a law that is supreme to the Constitution? What would then be the limitations of the federal government? Do we believe that the Commerce or General Welfare clauses can create an unlimited government that can bind us in all cases whatsoever? The FATHER of the Constitution says that CANNOT be.

Neither the Commerce Clause nor the General Welfare Clause can authorize the federal government to bind the States without limit; and neither can the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. If we acquiesce to an interpretation of the Constitution that establishes NO LIMITS to the federal government, what in the world is the point of the Constitution? Why do we even have a Republican government? The FATHER of the Constitution warns us:

“…for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the –Constitution- which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the –limitations-…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” –James Madison

I am sure that you agree that we did not establish a monarchy in this nation. Logic dictates that James Madison is correct in stating that a government that is not limited is one that is a monarchy. If the federal limitations established by the Constitution be expanded by decree of the federal government itself then there is no limit to its reach. A mandate to purchase healthcare is a mandate to purchase anything the government chooses.

The question remains can the Supreme Court transform our federal government into an unlimited government? The Supreme Court is, after all, a PART of the federal government. How can the federal government have the authority to determine its own limitations?

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the –States-… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” James Madison

If we are to have a Constitutionally limited government it is incumbent upon our elected representatives to maintain those limitations. We CANNOT allow the federal government to define its own powers and limitations, else we allow the federal government to transform itself into a monarchy. I am sure you will agree that no man is perfect and all governments are capable of making error in judgment. That is precisely why the framers of this nation created a government with MULTIPLE checks and balances. YOU are a part of that system; YOU are one of those checks. We are requiring you to do your job and maintain a limited federal government so that the people can maintain their Liberty.

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must know, as Alexander Hamilton declared, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must stand against a federal government that can mandate purchases and therefore bind it’s the people of this nation in all things they choose. Listen to the warning of Thomas Paine:

“Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but ‘to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

Let me reiterate…We MUST maintain a dialogue in this matter. I cannot accept your recent communication as a final word. I am therefore expecting a reasonable response to the concerns stated in this letter. If I do not receive a response, I will have no other choice to then understand that you do not accept these facts to be true. I will then be forced to believe:

1. You support an unlimited federal government;

2. You feel no obligation to fulfill your role as a check against unlimited federal power;

3. You agree that the federal government can bind the people of this nation in any circumstance they feel fit;

4. You support the forced slavery of the citizens of this state.

If that is the case, you have failed as our elected employee. As a rational person I am sure you can agree that we cannot maintain an employee who refuses to communicate with a supervisor and supports behavior that will destroy the company. As reasonable owners of this Constitutional Republic, who wholly respect and sovereignly reverence the price paid for this company, we cannot allow that to happen.

I will be waiting for your prompt and reasonable reply.

Sincerly,