Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 12:10 am
You last visited January 16, 2017, 11:54 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

'1st draft of Articles of Impeachment' arrives


'1st draft of Articles of Impeachment' arrives

Obamacare 'illegally bypasses Congress, unauthorized IRS  power-grab'



President Obama shaking hands with Supreme Court  Chief Justice John Roberts

Obamacare not only is unconstitutional, it illegally bypasses Congress,  infringes on states’ rights and marks an unprecedented and unauthorized  expansion of Internal Revenue Service power, according to a brand-new book  released today.


In “Impeachable  Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times  bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott quote scholars and legal  organizations contending Obamacare constitutes a clear case of “taxation without  representation.”

“Impeachable Offenses” shows Obamacare may violate multiple sections of the  Constitution.

While the Obama administration may argue the healthcare legislation was  upheld by the Supreme Court, “Impeachable Offenses” reports the White House has  been hard at work changing the implementation of key sections of Obamacare  without congressional oversight.

Taxation without representation

One part of the Constitution that may be violated is Article 1 Section 9,  which stipulates: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in  Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Get  “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”  autographed, at WND’s Superstore

The section is clarified in the Sixteenth Amendment: “The Congress shall have  power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without  apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or  enumeration.”

The Supreme Court ruled the health-care mandate under the legislation is a  tax. However, according to experts cited in “Impeachable Offenses,” this tax  does not satisfy any of the three types of valid constitutional taxes – income,  excise or direct.

Write Klein and Elliott: “Because the penalty is not assessed on income, it  is not a valid income tax. Because the penalty is not assessed uniformly or  proportionately, and is triggered by economic inactivity, it is not a valid  excise tax. Finally, because ObamaCare fails to apportion the tax among the  states by population, it is not a valid direct tax.”

Despite Obama’s public statements that the individual mandate was not a tax,  the Supreme Court ruled June 28, 2012, in a 5 to 4 vote, with conservative Chief  Justice John Roberts siding with the majority, that the requirement that the  majority of Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty was  constitutional, authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a  financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be  characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the  Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass  upon its wisdom or fairness.”

In a second 5 to 4 vote, again with Justice Roberts joining the majority, the  court rejected the administration’s most vigorous argument in support of the  law, that Congress held the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause, the court ruled, did not apply.

However, Klein and Elliott document the White House has been changing the law  without involving Congress following the Supreme Court ruling and that multiple  sections of the implementation of Obamacare are unconstitutional.

Illegally bypassing Congress? Bribing states?

“Impeachable Offenses” cites  Jonathan H. Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and  Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Institute.

The duo found: “The law encourages states to create health-insurance  exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. …  ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311)  but not federal ones (Section 1321).

“In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of  ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for  revisions.”

The Obama administration, however, was furiously at work in an attempt to  avoid a legislative debacle. The administration proposed an IRS rule to “offer  premium assistance in all exchanges ‘whether established under section 1311 or  1321,’” Adler and Cannon said.

The Treasury Department, they continued, was “confident” that the IRS had the  authority to offer premium assistance where Congress had not authorized it and  that this overreach was “consistent with the intent of the law and [its] ability  to interpret and implement it.”

“Such confidence is misplaced,” Adler and Cannon asserted. “The text of the  law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks  the power to dispense tax credits or spend money.”

In May 2012 the IRS released its final regulations that would “provide  guidance to individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Affordable  Insurance Exchanges and claim the premium tax credit, and to Exchanges that make  qualified health plans available to individuals and employers.”

Free-market advocate Phil Kerpen, cited in “Impeachable Offenses,” called the  regulations an “outrageous edict that attempts to up-end the ability of states  to opt out of [Obama’s] health care law’s new entitlement.”

Kerpen called the Obama administration out for what he said was an obvious  attempt to “bribe states to participate by manipulating language in the law that  is meant to authorize start-up grants to instead fund years of operating  expenses.”

Indeed, a July 2012 announcement from the Department of Health and Human  Services offered states six full years of funding.

Was the maneuver constitutional? Article I, Section 1 states: “All  legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United  States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Congress does not vest the power to write and rewrite laws in HHS and IRS;  nor can unelected bureaucrats impose taxes on states that legitimately opted out  of a federal program, Kerpen continued.

“Impeachable Offenses” further cites Adler and Cannon on how the IRS went  ahead in May 2012 and finalized “a rule that will issue tax credits – and  therefore will trigger cost-sharing subsidies and employer-mandate penalties –  through federal Exchanges.”

They contended that the rule is not only illegal, but it also lacks any  statutory authority.

‘State’s rights violated’

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to  the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are  reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment Center, which was among the plaintiffs that took  Obamacare to the Supreme Court, clarifies that the amendment was “written to  emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal  government.”

“In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and  the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their  sovereign powers.”

As of February 2013, only 17 states and the District of Columbia planned to  run their own exchanges, while another seven opted for state-federal exchanges.  The 26 states that have chosen to opt out entirely challenged the law in the  Supreme Court

In January 2010, Ken Klukowski explained that the Tenth Amendment does not  apply here in the way many people have thought – although it does apply in a  more serious manner, “Impeachable Offenses” relates. Klukowski co-authored with  former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell the 2010 book “The Blueprint:  Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.”

Citing two cases from the 1990s, Klukowski wrote that the Supreme Court  “shocked the legal world” by striking the cases down for violating the Tenth  Amendment.

The first case was in 1992, New York v. United States, in which “the Court  struck down a federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal  of radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those laws.”

In the second case, Printz v. United States in 1997, the court “struck down a  provision of the Brady Act – a federal gun-control law – that required state and  local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun purchasers.”

From these two cases, Klukowski explained, “emerged the anti-commandeering  principle, holding that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from  commandeering – or ordering – any branch of state government to do anything. The  states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington,  D.C.”

The commandeering principle is the real problem for Obamacare, write Klein  and Elliott, since the law requires each states to set up insurance  exchanges.

“It then requires the states to pass regulations for implementing those laws.  And it further requires the states to dedicate staff and spend state money to  administer those programs,” said Klukowski.

In his opinion, Obamacare is a “straight-out repeat of those 1992 and 1997  cases.”

“The main difference is that Obamacare violates the anti-commandeering  principle in a far more severe and egregious way than those previous laws ever  did,” Klukowski concluded.

Originated in Senate?

“Impeachable Offenses” cites Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, which  states: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of  Representatives.”

The Sacramento, Calif.-based Pacific Legal Foundation filed a challenge to  Obamacare that contends it is unconstitutional, because the bill originated in  the Senate, not the House.

The foundation claims that under the Origination Clause of the Constitution  “all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.”

The tip to follow this course of action came from the Supreme Court itself.  In his June 28, 2012, ruling, it was noted that Chief Justice Roberts took pains  in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate.

The Justice Department claimed that the bill did not originate as a spending  bill and therefore does not violate the Origination Clause.

The bill, which began life as House Resolution 3590, then called the Service  Members Home Ownership Act, was stripped of its contents after it passed in the  House in a process known as “gut and amend.” The legislation was replaced  entirely with the thousands of pages of what eventually became Obamacare and  given a new name.

The Obama government’s position is that while using the resolution as a  “‘shell bill’ may be inelegant … it’s not unconstitutional.”

The foundation’s response, as documented in “Impeachable Offenses,” was that  “it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue.  … Unlike in the prior cases [cited by the Justice Department], the Senate’s  gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for  raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore  inapplicable.”

While the Justice Department contended that raising revenue was incidental to  Obamacare’s “central purpose” – to improve the nation’s health care system – the  foundation’s attorney, Timothy Sandefur, disagreed.

“What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.

Creating commerce

The Commerce Clause, as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,  grants Congress the rights to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate  commerce, Klein and Elliott note.

Since the 1930s, Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Commerce Clause  broadly,” relates Ilya Somin, an associate professor of law at George Mason  University School of Law and co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review.

“But every previous case expanding the commerce power involved some sort of  ‘economic activity,’ such as operating a business or consuming a product.  Failure to purchase health insurance is neither commerce nor an interstate  activity. Indeed, it is the absence of commerce,” Somin added.

Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett, a former student of  Harvard Law School professors Charles Fried and Laurence Tribe, “both of whom  argued for the constitutionality of the [economic] mandate,” writes that Klein  and Elliott, has been referred to as “the ‘mastermind’ of the legal challenge”  against ObamaCare.

Barnett opined in a March 2011 debate with his former teachers: “Though  Congress can compel people to be drafted into the military or sit on a jury,  those activities relate to, as the Supreme Court put it, the ‘supreme and noble  duty’ of citizenship . . . There is no supreme and noble duty of citizens to  enter into contracts with private companies.” Barnett added that “the mandate  would result in a ‘fundamental alteration in the status of American  citizens.’”

Even the Congressional Budget Office weighed in, stating in January 2010: “A  mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an  unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people  to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United  States.”

Illegal penalty?

Obamacare affixes a financial penalty on Americans who fail to purchase  health insurance in order to regulate behavior – regulatory powers not granted  in the Constitution, documents “Impeachable Offenses.”

Scott P. Richert commented after the Supreme Court ruling: “Congress has been  given the green light to do something that even the most imaginative  interpretation of the Commerce Clause would not allow: to compel the supposedly  free citizens of the United States to purchase anything that Congress deems in  those citizens’ best interest – or to compel them to purchase one thing rather  than another.”

Richert, who is executive editor of Chronicles, the monthly magazine  published by the conservative think tank the Rockford Institute, continued: “All  Congress has to do is to pass legislation levying a tax on those who, say, fail  to purchase smoke detectors for their homes, or who insist on purchasing a car  that runs on gasoline over one that runs on electricity.”

Book fuels national debate

MSNBC reported Klein and Elliott’s “Impeachable Offenses” is fueling the  national conversation to impeach Obama.

The book lays out the blueprint for impeaching Obama, alleging high crimes,  misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution  and the limitations on the executive office.

Get  “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”  autographed, at WND’s Superstore

MSNBC.com  reported: “The national conversation to impeach the president has been  fueled in part by an upcoming book ‘Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing  Barack Obama from Office’ that’s set to be released by WND Books next week.”

Continued the news network: “The authors of that book lay out a number of  criticisms of the president, including his handling of the attack on the U.S.  consulate in Benghazi and his failure to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ the  Constitution.

“That includes the argument that the president’s health reform law is  unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court ruled more than a year ago that  it is constitutional.”

Politico  reported “Impeachable Offenses” will be hand-delivered to members of  Congress when they return from recess Sept 9.

Last week, BuzzFeed.com  reported Klein and Elliott’s new book “ushers in the Obama Impeachment  movement.”

“Impeachable Offenses” has already gone into its third printing, Klein said,  “due to unexpected demand from bookstores.”

“Clearly a large segment of the population is concerned Obama has overstepped  his executive authority and has used his office to circumvent Congress to  change, ignore, or at times perhaps invent de facto law,” he added.

WND Books CEO Joseph Farah told Buzzfeed, “We knew this was going to be a  popular book. What we didn’t realize is that retailers would recognize it in  advance and place large orders before the public weighed in.”

Cronyism, corruption, cover-ups

Already, the  Daily Mail of London has called the “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the  president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,”  stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or  independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power,  the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented  in this news-making book,” Klein said.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes  concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented  indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress,  infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized  expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto  amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and  executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from  prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with  new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the  assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious”  gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun  data.
  • From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of  Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage  of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related  to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without  congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening  enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and  minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. The White House is hitting  back, calling the book’s impeachment effort “foolhardy.”

“If the Republicans in the House want to try something that foolhardy, it  will probably be run by the same group of lawmakers who have voted more than 40  times to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” an unnamed administration official  told the Daily Mail.

“Like most of the partisan actions coming out of the House, the Senate would  never stoop to dignify it,” the official added.

Klein and Elliott acknowledge that impeachment of a sitting president “is  certainly a matter of the utmost gravity, and not a charge to be undertaken for  what our Founding Fathers would have called mere ‘factional’ advantage.”

“We will show how Obama has not hesitated to go beyond democratic, legal and  constitutional means to advance his radical agenda,” they write.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/1st-draft-of-articles-of-impeachment-arrives/#Q3I0GHuG7SKUuv6J.99

Entry #660


This Blog entry currently has no comments.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.