Illegal Congress - Redress
Don't Let Unconstitutional Legislation Be Shoved Down Your Throat ...
Thanks J.C at
Was the Vote on Healthcare By Congressional Democrats Constitutional? I think not!
Senators don't have the legal right to vote YES on Obamacare because its unconstitutional- see hard evidence in my constructive notice, below. I just served this on both my Senators from The State of CA, by certified mail, to have standing to petition them for redress of grievances if they ignore said petition. You can easily do the same by going to your state constitute, copying and pasting Article I and serve it to your senators.
These people have recently demonstrated without a doubt their cluelessness and it's well past time to bring them up to speed on the Constitution in their state. So what's it going to be roll over and suck your thumb and hope this magically goes away or stand up for your rights and put your Senators under notice that they have violated their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of their state and that of the U.S.A. Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the
meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule,
or other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and
the need for protecting that interest.
(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right
of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any
statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it
protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures
governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the
official performance or professional qualifications of a peace
(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any
provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided
in Section 7.
(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by
implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right
of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not
limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law
enforcement and prosecution records.
(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or
modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and
records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its
employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article
IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those
provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in
judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the
Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees,
committees, and caucuses.
TO: Senators Boxer and Feinstein
Via: Registered Letter
You have just met to vote on your parties Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.
I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, your vote will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.
Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.
See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");
Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) ("It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.")
Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org...), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);
Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com...), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")
And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:
United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com...), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA www.iahf.com... firstname.lastname@example.org 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World
Obama to sign treaty to give up American sovereignty
We The People Congress.org / blog
- ► 2010 (38)
- ▼ December (9)