Just substitute my signature as set forth below. Chris Barden and I have corresponded. He agrees on my analysis on the Medicaid features of the PP&ACA. -- J. R. G.
----- Original Message -----
From: jack graham
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Silver lining
Sharon Anderson, -- I wrote this note to my sister-in-law. Thought you'd be interested. -- John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
Kerry, -- Everybody thinks that the big suprise in the Obamacare decision was Roberts' self-contradictory opinion in which he held that the penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax, yet is a tax. It so happens that this opinion seemed to fit better with Ginsberg, who thinks that Congress can do anything, than Scalia who knows that Congress can do only a limited number of things. And so we have been told by irresponsible journalists that Obamacare was upheld.
Well, I have read all four opinions, 193 pages of dense text. I have studied, taught, practiced, and published in the field of constitutional law throughout my career. I was one of the amicus lawyers in the Obamacare case. I know who was trying to do what and why. I was trying to strengthen the hand of Clarence Thomas, but I have been in contact with many other lawyers in the case. The 26 attorneys general suing in the federal district court in northern Florida had the main objective in mind of knocking out the Medicaid extension provisions, at least the sanction upon a State which elected not to take the money, because participation means bankruptcy. Never before in American history have States been allowed to sue in federal court to restrain federal grants-in-aid conditioned upon specified exercise of powers reserved by the 10th amendment. The attorneys general brought suit to protest, but did not expect to win on that point. Nobody expected them to win. They lost on that point in the federal district court in Jacksonville, and before the 11th circuit. The old case of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923), was clearly decisive, and I gave them no chance at all. So the 26 attorneys general aimed mainly at the penalty for not buying insurance, and hoped to bring down the whole Act with it. Roberts, however, did not understand the use of taxes as a means of regulating commerce as stated by Alexander Hamilton in his Opinion on the Bank and his Report on Manufactures, and as was approved in the Philadelphia Convention. So he screwed up. That's too bad for him, the court, and the country. But no matter, and here's why:
In order for Obamacare to work as intended or at all as a practical matter, we need both the penalty for not buying insurance, as an inducement to individuals, and the sanction for not accepting Medicaid extension, as an inducement to the States. Otherwise the Act is dysfunctional. The mainstream media intentionally covered up the most important aspect of the decision of the United States Supreme Court, which is this: not only were the 26 attorneys general allowed to sue in behalf of their respective States, contrary to Massachusetts v. Mellon, as has never previously been allowed, but they won by vote of 7-2 before the United States Supreme Court! Roberts, two on the liberal wing, and four on the conservative wing held that the sanction on Medicaid extension in Obamacare is unconstitutional as an abuse of the spending power, which means that any State can bankruptcy by refusing the Medicaid program in Obamacare, yet suffer no penalty This means that Obamacare cannot be implemented without amendments. It has already been repealed in the House in which all revenue bills must originate. Without the House, Obamacare cannot be funded. It will be repealed by the House once again over the next few months. And 52% want Obamacare repealed, while 39% want to keep it. This margin has been lopsided ever since the law was passed. Obamacare will, naturally, be a big issue this fall.
Please feel free to pass this around. -- J. R. G.
P. S. Lord Monckton has just written a very advanced, and up-to-date report on Obama's birth certificate. I can send it to you, 20 pages of concise, beautiful English. He just sticks to the facts. He does not change the subject when challenged. He does not use ridicule, intimidation, or guilt by association. The conclusions are inescapable to anyone who is intellctually and morally honest. You don't have to read this report. You are also free to bury your head in the sand. Somebody in Hawaii is surely not telling the truth. The birth certificate is meaningful only in three ways: (1) It will swing some millions of votes away from Obama, which could be fatal in a very close election. (2) It serves as a warning signal or red flag for those who are not asleep at the switch. (3) As Lord Acton said, historical responsibility has to make up for want to legal responsibility. -- J. R. G.
Receipt of Responses
This message was sent to firstname.lastname@example.org from Voter Guide Toolkit on behalf of 2012 LWV Minnesota Voter Guide. If you would not like to receive any further messages from Voter Guide Toolkit, click here.
To ensure that you receive important messages from Voter Guide Toolkit, please add email@example.com to your address book.