Resist Obamacare – Two New Ways


October 2, 2013



Two new options for Obamacare resistance await. The first is found in the “News to Know” of our eNewsletter (our new Exchange Opt-Out Declaration). The second is a very important lawsuit headed to the U.S. Supreme Court to be considered for a hearing. This lawsuit makes a case that the individual and employer mandates are void due to unconstitutional processes engaged by the Democrat-led Congress. Without the mandates (and their penalties), Obamacare would be toothless.

CCHF is helping to fund a “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” for the case of Liberty University vs. Jacob Law, Secretary of the Treasury. The petition will be written by an attorney experienced in constitutional law and in making arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court “grants Cert,” the lawsuit will be heard and a ruling will be issued.

Your financial support is needed.

Please send a donation to CCHF today to help us defray the legal costs of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear this important Obamacare lawsuit.

The best arguments can move the Court to hold a hearing. Our petition will make the case that the individual and employer mandates are void – unconstitutional and illegal – because the legislative process Congress used to enact Obamacare violated the U.S. Constitution’s Origination Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cl. 1) and Presentment Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Cl. 2).

The Origination Clause was key to the U.S. Constitution’s existence. During an 1872 debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ohio Congressman (and later U.S. President) James A. Garfield reminded Members of the following:

“I am quite sure that the House cannot overrate the importance of the issue raised by the sending of that bill to this House.  I will only ask attention for a few moments to two or three points in relation to this question.  In the first place, I beg the House to remember that the place which this clause of the Constitution occupies in our Constitution is of the utmost importance. 

Twice during the constitutional Convention of 1787 the whole system hinged upon the exclusive right of the House to originate revenue bills.  Twice the determination of that single point settled the question whether the Constitution should be made or not.  Before the Convention had been in session one month this subject was introduced, and it was kept in the eye of the fathers of the Constitution almost every day from that time till the final adjustment of the Constitution. 

On the 5th of July 1787, when the framers had been at work more than six months, the proceedings were brought to a dead lock on the question of equality of the States in the Senate; the larger States saying they would never consent to allow the smaller States an equal voice with themselves in the Senate unless in return for that great grant it should also be granted to the larger States that their Representatives in the lower House should have the exclusive right to originate money bills. Of such importance was the right to originate money bills regarded that to secure it the other question was given up, and the States were all allowed an equal voice in the Senate, the large and the small – Delaware to be equal to New York; Rhode Island to Pennsylvania – and this was granted as an equivalent for the exclusive right to originate money bills in the popular branch.

And when that first great compromise of the Constitution was settled upon that basis, the whole system came near being unhinged again by throwing out this clause.  At last, when it was demanded that the Senate should have the exclusive right to ratify treaties, to try impeachments, and to confirm nominations, it was said, “The Senate shall never have that right, unless you restore the exclusive right to originate money bills in the House.”  The clause was then restored and kept in the Constitution as it now stands.”

The Presentment Clause prohibits a bill from having two versions of itself within the very same bill. But Obamacare has both the original language for the individual and employer mandates and amendments of the mandate language within the same bill, forcing Congress to vote once on essentially two versions of the same bill – the version as written with the original language and the version as written with amendments to the original language. In other words, instead of deleting the original language (delete and paste), the bill keeps the original language and later in the bill amends (deletes) it.

Thus, the individual and employer mandates (and the imposed fines) should be thrown out on their ear – voided – by acknowledgement that the process of passing the Senate bill violated the U.S. Constitution. Without the mandates, Obamacare can be ignored by the American public and American businesses.

Defeating Obamacare can be done. A successful lawsuit attacking the mandates will make it impossible for the Administration to force or cajole people into the Exchanges. It would be very difficult for the Obama administration to take over the entire health care system if no one had to comply with the takeover.

Citizen action is also key. Refusing to enroll in the Exchanges, or refusing, as a physician, to accept Obamacare “insurance” will dissuade enrollment, encourage disenrollment, and prevent Obamacare from becoming embedded in the fabric of America. With insufficient exchange enrollment, Obamacare will fail.

Do not give up. Our motto is: Resist. Repeal. Reclaim.

Conservatives are not the only opponents of Obamacare. Even the labor unions are horrified with what’s coming. They have told Democrat leadership, “We can no longer stand silent.” Neither can we. No one can sit, everyone must stand, and a country full of concerned citizens and patriots of every stripe must unite around the defeat and repeal of Obamacare. Otherwise we’ll all soon be living in a country that is America In Name Only. May it never be.

Committed to stopping Obamacare while the president is still in office,

Twila Brase
President and Co-founder