Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
—-
Naturopathic Physician
Political Philosopher & Author
—
Consultant, Speaker, Author
Naturopathic Medical Consultations
Marriage & Personal Counseling
—
(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com
The Christian Constitutional Republic
One Nation Under God
Government of, by, and for the People
Liberty and Justice for All
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
The Health Care Bills
& Constitutional Erosion
By: Margo Diann Abshier, ND
9/12/2009
From: Margo Diann Abshier
To: Charley S.
Saturday, September 12, 2009, 4:38 PM
I received the email below of Michael Connelly’s commentary on Nationalized Healthcare. It is very informative about the threat this legislation poses to our freedoms, and I suggest that you send it to as many people as you can.
But, the Nationalized Healthcare legislation is not the only bill currently before Congress which will overthrow our Constitutional rights. I recently sent a letter to my Congressmen and Senators listing about 11 areas where they are attempting to pass legislation that will erode our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If you would like a copy of that, send me an email.
Dr. Margo
Regarding the healthcare bill, the link to the bill itself is: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Michael Connelly’s article about the healthcare bill can be found at: http://www.freedomtorch.com/2619/blog/297/.
Below his article he has a blog where he answers questions. He notes that giving specific references to places in the bill where there are problems is a moving target because the bill is changing daily. You can ask him questions on the blog, and you can read his books if you are interested in his perspective.
____________________
The Truth About the Health Care Bills
by: Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09
http://www.freedomtorch.com/2619/blog/297/
Well,
I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable
Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area
of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed
law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse
than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about
the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the
media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly
where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care
for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation
in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force
private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run
system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal
bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions,
payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly
controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In
fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing
affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive
transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or
even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of
the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first
thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive,
Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring
to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives
of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress
doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy
anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to
the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for
access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare
information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer,
physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions
of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches
and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been
legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that
is not deemed acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama
there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because
of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows
you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone
of property without the “due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments
that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are
effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment
that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment
states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people
nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once
were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but
I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power
and limiting rights.
Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses
of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If
I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything
like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted
for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those
who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly,
Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton Texas
____________________________
To: Margo Diann Abshier
From: "Charley S."
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:50 AM
It would be nice to see a more detailed analysis of how specific provisions of the
bill conflict with specific provisions of the Constitution, instead of a vague and
general assertion of the violation of the principle of "separation of powers," which
itself does not explicitly appear in the Constitution. I'm not going to take the
time to do it myself, personally, but it would be nice to see.
Charley S.
_________________________
From: "Margo Diann Abshier"
To: "Charley S."
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:05 AM
Well, that was my suggestion Charley. Write him and personally ask for him to provide
a link to his more specific insights. I am sure he has something like that somewhere
and could post it on line, if he thought there was interest in it. I can't imagine
an attorney reading the whole bill and not taking notes. And, separation of powers
is not the only thing he discusses in this letter. What about government access to
all your private medical records, banking records, etc?
By the way, your assertion
that "separation of powers" is not in the Constitution itself, I find very interesting.
Do you mean to tell me that legislative intent in not important in the interpretation
of the law? Is it your assertion that the Federalist Papers have no references to
the "separation of powers?" Or maybe that Joseph Story never referred to "separation
of powers" in his Commentaries on the Constitution? Or the legal commentaries on
the Constitution and the lectures on law by James Wilson, are these not fundamental
to the interpretation of a "separation of powers?" It is my understanding that the
entire debate of the Constitutional Congress is part of the legislative intent of
the founders on the interpretation of the Constitution. Am I incorrect in those assumptions?
And, why is it that most lawyers believe that the Constitution contains the words
"separation of church and state" which it does not, while you assert that somehow
the "separation of powers" is not an essential component of the Constitution, when,
it is my understanding, that it was an integral concept in the formulation of the
document?
Margo
_____________________
From: "Charley S."
To: Margo Diann Abshier"
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 2:59 PM
While the US Constitution does very clearly actually separate legislative, executive
and judicial powers into Articles I, II and II, respectively, the term "separation
of powers" is not in the Constitution. Terms and concepts like "separation of powers,"
and "separation of church and state," are taken from peripheral writings. Legislative
intent is only relevant when the plain English meaning of certain words is too ambiguous
to make sense, but that's really pretty rare.
Prior to reviewing any legislators'
written ruminations, any ambiguous terms in the Constitution must be interpreted
in a manner consistent with the Declaration of Independence, as the latter is law,
and the former is not.
In my view, if we want people to respect and obey the Constitution,
we need to lead by example and refer to that document only with clarity and specificity.
The other side makes vague and broad references to "penumbrae of emanations," when
pretending to invoke the authority of the Constitution, but let us not fall into
that same trap.
Charley S.
___________________
From: Margo Diann Abshier
To: "Charley S."
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 12:49 AM
Charley, I hear what
you are saying, but I think we need to make a distinction between the "penumbra of
emanations" of the liberals and the use of the Federalist Papers and other original
documents that shed light on the original understandings of the Founders. I do not
consider founding documents like the Federalist papers to be "peripheral" in the
interpretation of the Constitution. Like the legislative intent often added to bills,
when they are enacted, to make the meaning and purpose clear, the writings of the
Founders themselves are integral to the interpretation of the Constitution itself
– especially, the leading legal experts of the day, like Joseph Story and James Wilson.
The first thing the Founders did was put James Wilson on the Supreme Court because
he understood more than most, every detail of the debates that led to the actual
wording of the Declaration and the Constitution. He was also one of the most prolific
contributors to the debates in the Constitutional Convention.
The liberals are explicitly
utilizing such tactics as "penumbral" interpretations of the Constitution with the
specific intention of dismantling the Constitution and making it null and void, via
legal shenanigans and obvious "misinterpretations" of the laws as they were practically
applied in the founding era. Utilizing a study of the words of the Founders in their
"peripheral" documents is an honest attempt to truly and correctly interpret the
Constitution, and to honor their contribution and wisdom. This approach is not an
attempt to do the Constitution or the Founders the disservice and dishonor so characteristically
exhibited in the liberal contempt for both. To compare the two as being in any way
equivalent, is insulting to any moral and thinking person.
Clearly, the Founders'
use of the English language differs greatly from our usage of many words today. For
instance, the word "regulated" in the second amendment had no association with governmental
regulation as it is often interpreted by courts today. It just meant then that they
regularly got together, and practiced disciplined military drills together in their
communities, usually under the training of local pastors and or local ex military
men. Unless you look up the word in a dictionary from that time period, you wouldn't
know that.
To say that the words are obvious without the legal commentaries by the
very Founders who actually wrote the words of the Declaration and the Constitution,
like James Wilson, is to assume one understood what they meant, without researching
to verify, and for purposes of honest clarification. Like former Chief Justice William
Rehnquist said of the supposed "wall" of separation between church and state, in
Wallace; "it is a metaphor based on bad history"..."no amount of repetition of historical
errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true." [This metaphor] "should be
frankly and explicitly abandoned"..."Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution
but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor." "History must judge whether it was
the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed
from the meaning of the Establishment Clause."
There can be only one reason that the
Founders themselves chose to so carefully document their debates and discussions,
and that legal commentaries on the Constitution were written. That is to help this
nation know and maintain all that the Founders bequeathed to their posterity. The
Federalist papers were written to explain the Constitution to the people, to obtain
ratification. So, even for the people of the time and common understanding of the
language of their era, further explanation was deemed necessary. And, now are we
to presume that we are so "enlightened" as to not need their input on interpreting
original intent, or so "evolved" as to not need to even know the original intent
or care? I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessments and comparisons.
To relate
this back to the Constitutional lawyer who did a pretty good job describing his problems
with the Obama health care legislation, in lay terms, in a brief description that
lay people could digest, and then to dismiss the whole of his contribution based
on a reference to a "separation of powers," is; to quote Jesus: ""Woe to you, teachers
of the law...You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Matthew
23: 23-24
Dr. Margo
—––––––––––––––––––
From: "Charley S."
To: "Margo Diann Abshier"
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:14 PM
Like everything in law, statutory interpretation is a matter of tradition, and, in
that tradition, legislative intent is actually pretty far down the list of interpretive
tools.
Usually, if interpretation beyond the plain English meaning is necessary, then
an honest court will look first to statutory definition, then the manner in which
it has customarily been used in law, etc., before looking at legislative intent,
which is really very prudent.
For instance, the Constitutional Convention only had
the opportunity to vote on the Constitution. As a group, they never had the opportunity
to vote on the Federalist Papers, and, clearly, not everyone agreed on everything
with Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, so it would be undemocratic to say the
very least to treat the Federalist Papers as though they were law.
With regard to
the health care bill analysis, I apologize for having been ungrateful. Of course,
it is true that if I want a more detailed analysis, then I should do it myself, but
that is a bridge too far. The last thing I want to do is read a thousand page bill
written by our current Congress, so my hat is off to whoever can do it. :)
Charley
S.
__________
From: "Margo Diann Abshier"
To: "Charley S."
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:56 PM
Unfortunately, the current "Tradition"
of interpreting the law is based on Judicial Activism that began in law schools in
the 1920's, followed by Constitutional powers being exceeded by Congress and the
President in the 1930's, and then the Supreme Court chiming in via judicial fiat,
starting in the late 1930's through to the present. According to Rob Natelson, Professor
of Constitutional Law, Legal History, and Advanced Constitutional Law at the University
of Montana School of Law, he feels a coup d'etat totally changed the way the law
was interpreted beginning in the late 1930's and that America’s current legal "Tradition"
is no longer anything recognizable by either the Founders or even to former Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, who just died not long ago.
Chief Justice Hughes, tried
to slow the socialist agenda of the Democrats in Congress and of FDR, in the 1930's,
but eventually, with changes to the Court, and things in so much flux, from FDR changing
out 4 different Supreme Court justices, that the grip on the true legal "Tradition"
of this nation, was lost to the Socialists in the 1940's.
The Court allowed the Congress
first to exceed its Constitutional authority with regard to the Commerce clause,
allowing the previously "Traditional" interpretation of Commerce powers (Article
1, section 8, clause 3) (with clause 18, the necessary and proper clause) - being
buying, selling, trading, etc., to be replaced with such additional areas of assumed
powers of Congress to extend to control of manufacturing, land use, agriculture,
crime, environmental concerns, etc.; usurping powers that had been previously exclusively
reserved to the states.
In 1936 a new doctrine was established allowing Congress to
spend money for any purpose they deemed necessary. Then in 1938 the Property Clause
and Enclave Clause destroyed the limited Congressional control over land, and that
allowed Congress to take over large tracts of land and enclaves (used to be restricted
to land for forts) where the states no longer had authority over their own land.
The property clause allows the Feds to own and control 28% of all the land in the
USA. Federal mismanagement of this land, like readmitting wolves, which are now wantonly
killing whole herds of livestock and wild game in a single night, just for sport,
is a good example of insanity wrought by the Liberal Socialists in the Federal Government.
The government used to pay farmers to kill wolves that threatened their herds, now
they will fine and punish them for doing so. There are likewise many usurpations
of power associated with the wetlands.
These revolutions in doctrine began originally
when Justice Hughes provided a faint basis for precedent for one case. Hughes tried
to permit an expanded use of Commerce power to deal with labor relations, which was
an effort to connect with past judgments, although weakly. Later, within about 3
or 4 years, and after Hughes left the Court, the Court began to site previous cases
that were not at all appropriate precedent for judgment in their current cases. They
were kind of hand waving, fig leaf sorts of excuses for expansion of Federal powers,
based on judicial fiat, not "Tradition." The true "Tradition" of the Founders went
out the window long before our current law professors were around to hear or know
about it.
US v Darby Lumber allowed the Federal government to take over control of
strictly local industries that operate totally within intrastate boundaries. Wickard
v Filburn gave the Federal Government control over what a farmer could grow on his
own land.
Would that the idealistic view you portray, of judicial restraint and reliance
on "Tradition" and true precedent, really had anything to do with the current "Justice"
system in this country. Stare decisis is only valid, in the liberal mind, for decisions
based on judicial activism and fiat like Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. No, the
liberals say, we can never go back, we can only go "progressively" forward in destroying
the Constitution. How in the world can you make a case that Abington v Schempp was
based on "Tradition" when prayer and Bible reading were a significant part of the
public school curricula throughout our national history from the 1600's up until
1962 and 1963, when suddenly, every level of government (local, state, and federal)
in effect became "Congress". The First Amendment prohibits the US Congress, not state
and local governments from establishing a religion. Was Congress establishing an
official religion when local and state school policy continued the "Traditions" of
prayer and Bible reading in public schools?
As Rahm Emanuel said a few months ago:
" never let a good crisis go to waste." FDR and the Socialist Democrats did just
that during the Depression and WWII. When the people were too busy just surviving,
the Leftists performed their power grab from the states.
The necessary and proper
clause was derived out of common law, allowing Congress incidental powers. The Constitution
gave Congress incidental powers that were limited to minor expressions of their principle
powers. Principle powers are like the power to declare war; incidental powers would
be to build barracks to house troops for that war. What the Court did in the 1940's
was to allow Congress to regulate all of manufacturing – that's not within the Constitutional
scope of the necessary and proper clause.
From this distortion of the necessary and
proper provision, the Federal Government now forces all Americans to use certain
toilets and not others, and to use mercury laden curly light bulbs. What do you think
happened to our old 3 gallon "Traditional" toilets that we only had to flush once?
Now we have to flush these new toilet jobbies several times, often wasting more water
due to inefficient flushing. Where is our "Traditional" freedom to choose a toilet
or light bulb that makes sense and works and is less polluting? And, why must hunters
now use shotgun shells that are not as good, because Congress decided that we can
only use stainless steel shot to harvest animals for food? And where are the "free
market economics" that would allow the consumer to govern and correct the market
and mistakes quickly, without more government bureaucratic red tape?
Back to healthcare,
made expensive by government involvement and tort lawyers, Medicare and Medicaid,
and now we will cure the system that was created by the Federal government, by giving
the Feds total control over every aspect of our lives? The Federal government involvement
in public education, especially taking the Bible out of public school usage, has
contributed tremendously to our societal degradation, the downfall of our national
morality, and the ineffectiveness of our public education system, which now ranks
down there with some 3rd world nations. The Court has given the pornography industry
the supposed Constitutional "right to freedom of expression” on buses, billboards,
TV, Internet, radio, and magazine advertisements as another “right” that they developed
from their “penumbral” interpretations. What, pray tell, is "Traditional" about forcing
pornography, as a so called “freedom of expression”, on every human in the nation?
I
am for "Tradition" if it is the "Traditions" and legal precedents that were set before
the Socialist onslaught of the 1930s, and that continue to the present.
A very informative
audio recording of a radio program by the 10th Amendment Center, interview of Rob
Natelson can be heard at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/31/rob-natelson-a-constitutional-coup-detat/
Dr. Margo
__________________
From: "Charley S."
To: "Margo Diann Abshier"
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:12 PM
Hi, Margo,
Of course, you are right. Case law has been used to subvert our laws and
constrain our liberty since at least the late 19th century.
Our Anglo-American common
law system is based entirely on traditions dating back almost a millennium. The Oxford
library card catalogue has cases dating to the 13th century.
All case law and statutes
enacted in violation of those organic statutes - Constitution or the Declaration
- are essentially void and invalid, but that won't of course help you in tax court.
The
question is how to bring about radical reform and restore integrity to the system,
and the answer is political power. The thing about political power, however, is you
have to know what you're going to do with it before you get it. That is, you have
to do know how to do things right before you can amend that which is wrong.
Have a
good night,
Yours truly,
Charley S.
_____________________
Continuing dialogue between M&C (edited)
Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:30 AM
Hi Charley. Yes, the point of what I wrote you yesterday, was to clarify where we
have been, what went wrong, and from that understanding, how to reverse course. Actually,
I think the Court was still pretty ethical in 1892, especially with regard to the
Trinity v US decision. They took 10 years to research the case, and in the process
examined our history and documented the Christian roots of nearly everything American.
They concluded that we are a religious people and we are a Christian Nation. That
shows perseverance, integrity, and a commitment to the truth when people put that
amount of work into a decision. Compare that to the present day half-hour hearings
of cases by the Supreme Court. What a mockery of jurisprudence.
I think "political
power" has become too concentrated in the media and special interest groups. But,
I think that is going to change, seeing the Tea Party movement having such a glorious
time celebrating our nation and its real history – not the fake history being taught
by public schools. Even legal scholarship on the Founding era has blossomed. At least
some people are back at the work of rebuilding the walls of moral principle and the
ancient markers of our covenant with God. The people must return to the Lord to return
to the freedom and prosperity that He desires for our nation. When people base their
lives on Godly principles, they form an organic power base that will naturally choose
leaders of good character who will in turn enact righteous laws.
We cannot rely on the Republican party to save us, because it is split internally, with one faction supporting Godliness, and the other trusting in humanistic principles alone. When in power the Republicans capitulated to the Democrats and gave them pieces of their socialist agenda in the spirit of bipartisanship. The Republican base was disgusted with the betrayal of the Contract with America. Those on the fringes of the party left and voted for the opposing party candidates. Those who rebelled against the Republican party had a right to be repulsed by the lack of leadership and courage to stand against the Democrat calls for “compromise” and “unity”. The Republicans in fact capitulated to “socialist-lite” legislation (the $400 billion dollar prescription drug bill), were seduced by the gang of 14 (which included John McCain), consented to the appointment of lukewarm conservatives to fill important positions, and retained democrats in positions of leadership in the Administration.
Those who had put their hopes in the Republicans returning us to our Constitutional roots had a right to feel disgusted with the direction government was going under Republican majority and leadership. But, the solution was not to turn to the policies and leadership of the Democratic party.
The restoration of our nation will come when we look back and try to recapture the spirit of our nation as crafted by our Founders, and documented in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration, and the arguments of principles in the Federalist papers. Above all we must adopt the spirit underlying the Holy Bible, since it is the foundation for all that is good and right in our Republic.
The media has told us that to vote for a 3rd party or Independent candidate is to throw our vote away. But, in fact to vote for a man who “has a chance to win, but is the lesser of two evils” is to actively participate in the decay of society. At this point, our nation will only return to right social and political principles when the people of the nation return to the Faith of our Fathers. When we return to government as a Christian Constitutional Republic, our prosperity and freedoms will return.
