The growing concern among Americans about the federal government’s headlong rush toward bigger government and bigger deficits, as revealed by the widespread Tea Party movement, is bringing a momentous question to a head. That general question is: Should the federal government be free to do whatever a majority of Congress approves? Or, to restate the question in terms of the present health care reform debate: Should the federal government be free to provide any health care services approved by a majority of Congress?

By stating the general question above, we are forced to consider whether there is any limit on what Congress can approve. A growing number of Americans are beginning to understand that there really is a limit -- the U.S. Constitution. So, our situation is coming to this: Are American voters going to permit the federal government to do whatever it decides to do, or are they going to insist that it adheres to the Constitution?

I’ve heard some say that telling people a piece of legislation is unconstitutional just doesn’t resonate with them. I agree that most people don’t really understand what this type of statement means; however, I also think that many more are awakening on this score. But consider this, we’re witnessing a federal government that is increasingly out of control. We’re seeing trillion dollar deficits projected for many years to come. On top of this we have President Obama’s health care reform plan for increased government control of the health care industry, the Cap and Trade bill which is expected to cost thousands of dollars per household per year, the Law of the Sea Treaty which would give the United Nations control over everything that happens on, under, and over the earth’s oceans and seas, not to mention the naked power grabs over the financial and auto industries by the Executive Branch.

In short we have a government that threatens to completely destroy our unique life of freedom and prosperity as Americans. I know that this vision is resonating with Americans in a negative way. So, what’s the answer? Grassroots Americans must force a majority of Congress to obey the Constitution, or be replaced next election. We can still preserve our freedom and prosperity, if we just follow Thomas Jefferson’s exhortation, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Thankfully, we’re seeing some constitutionalists applying the Constitution to help stop Obama’s health care reform plan. Just yesterday that rising star, Judge Andrew Napolitano, did this in his article in the Wall Street Journal, “Health-Care Reform and the Constitution.” He wrote:

What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.

Two days ago, libertarian Anthony Gregory had his opinion piece, “Can Obama force you to buy health insurance?”, posted on the Christian Science Monitor website. He wrote: “Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare -- yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.”

If you haven’t already viewed my video, “Constitutionalists Nix Obama’s Health Care Reform at Town Halls,” be sure to take a look and see grassroots Americans applying the Constitution to reject Obama’s government takeover plan for health care.

Here’s a recent three-minute video of Judge Napolitano explaining exactly what the Constitution does authorize Congress to do and why Obama’s health care reform plan is unconstitutional:



Contact your representative and senators and tell them to “just drop health care reform” because it’s unconstitutional!

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Robert McManus said:

... You say: "...the Law of the Sea Treaty which would give the United Nations control over everything that happens on, under, and over the earth’s oceans and seas...." I hesitate to call people "liars," when they might be merely stupid; this statement is demonstrably false. The LOS Treaty gives the UN NO power, let alone those hysterically described in this article. The LOS Treaty gives NO international organization powers even remotely resembling those described here. I defy anyone on this site to provide a reference to the Treaty text supporting the above-quoted statement, and I'd be happy to make a side bet.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Larry Greenley said:

Re Robert McManus' comment: Don't argue with me, go to the official UN website: "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out." ("25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Oct. 17, 2007, posted at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/co...s_info.pdf )

report abuse vote down vote up

September 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0