Is ObamaCare Really Law?

With all the fallout which has occurred since Sunday and the Health Care Deform legislation supposedly signed into law by Barack Obama on Tuesday, and with the two mainstream political parties attempting to continue to milk this egregious legislation for their future political purposes for all it is worth, the fact that this law may not be law at all has failed to get any significant press in any of the mainstream news sources, or even those talking heads on national television whether affiliated with Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. organization (Fox), Turner television or GE controlled sources.

In the educated opinion of this writer, all theatrics and representations to the contrary, I would state this Act of Congress is questionably law at all, whether or not Mr. Obama has signed it, or whether or not these bogus Congressionally created "procedures" such as "reconciliation" (whatever that is) were followed to the letter.

Since any "law" passed that doesn't have a Constitutional foundation at its outset, or in any of its provisions, is really no law at all.

And Executive Orders, as most educated Americans also know, do not also carry the force of law, they are simply directives of the President to the Executive office employees and regulatory agencies which are not immuned also from Constitutional provisions with respect to validity or legality.

Using Executive Orders to legitimate illegitimate legislation is also something that is increasing with each "progresssive" Administration.

This has been the new game on the Hill consistently for about the past 50 years.

Pass an unconstitutional law, get it signed and announced as legitimate using national news sources, and then use it in the future also for political partisan fodder and for election purposes when those budgets come through from the regulatory offices then charged with enforcing these "nonlaws" in the Appropriations Committee.

Such as also all these Fusion Centers being funded under the Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which continues to be funded through the Appropriations Committee, but which has not been passed by one branch of Congress, nor even signed by the Executive since it also clearly in a great many of its provisions targeting the American citizens is fundamentally unconstitutional.

While then also using federal mandates then to also hold the states hostage to some of these mandates, and then in shifting the burden for execution of these NonActs to the states, leaving them then liable for the outfall and lawsuits which then subsequently ensue.

Or if not using the states to execute these mandates under threats of removal of funding for Constitutional functions, using the Supreme Court instead to use legalese such as "public policy" and "state's interests", and the newest one, holding with a "living Constitution" in order to also attempt to legalize laws which have absolutely no Constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Below is the actual proof that such is the case, and with those mandatory fines still included in this bill in its present form, when it is even questionable the federal government had any inherent right to wade into these waters absent using that Commerce Clause to do its actual job, regulate those national and global health care industry vipers and also hold them accountable for unexplained increases in their rates and terms rather than throwing the citizenry to the wolves once again without oversight.

From the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions including recognizing the needed consent of the people and the states per the 9th and 10th for all matters outside federal authority for any future amendments to it, is the defacto law of the land, and a contract between the federal government, state government and the people.


Section 256. Generally.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]


The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.