(NaturalNews) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson dealt a severe blow to Obamacare today, ruling that the government's attempt to force citizens to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision puts the enforceability of Obama's health care system in doubt.
Obama's health plan was designed around a "minimum essential coverage provision" that seeks to force every American to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. This is essentially a Big Brother commerce requirement where the government dictates that private citizens must purchase a product or service even if they don't wish to. It also forces followers of natural medicine to buy into a system of drugs-and-surgery conventional medicine even if they have no intention of ever using it.
The Constitution limits the power of federal government
The United States Constitution, which is the document that grants the federal government powers, did not grant the federal government any right to force citizens to purchase certain products or services. Obama's health care insurance mandate, therefore, was an overreaching effort on the part of the federal government to dictate the purchasing decisions of private citizens in order to achieve a political goal.
Citizens who refused to comply with this requirement to purchase health insurance were to be punished by none other than the IRS. Fines would be issued to citizens beginning in 2014 if they failed to prove to the IRS that they had purchased health insurance. Thus, Obama's health care system put the IRS in charge of enforcing an unconstitutional mandate that private citizens buy something they did not want nor need
This is what Judge Henry Hudson found to be unconstitutional. He found that the essential coverage provision "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
Tenth Amendment protections
He's right, of course. There is no such power granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, if a specific power was never granted to the federal government, then that power remains with the States or the people. Since the Constitution never granted the federal government the power to dictate that private citizens purchase health
insurance -- and in fact Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and other founding fathers would have been horrified by such a power grab -- that power remains solely with the States and the people.
What will the US Supreme Court rule?
With this ruling in place, the constitutionality of Obamacare will now likely move to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, is the body that interprets the Constitution and decides whether modern-day laws are allowed under its provisions.
If the justices of the Supreme Court actually abide by the Constitution, they must agree with Judge Henry Hudson and strike down the minimum essential coverage provision of Obama's health care law.
But if they choose to betray the Constitution and the People, they may decide in favor of Obamacare
and thereby ratchet up the power of Big Government to control the private lives and purchasing decisions of American citizens. The Supreme Court has not always respected the language of the Constitution, of course, so it's not yet certain how the court will rule on this subject. Most likely, the more conservative members of the Court will rule it unconstitutional.
Conventional health care is so bad that you have to threaten people if they don't buy it
It is especially enlightening that the U.S. health care system is such an utter failure that the government must force citizens
to buy into it under the threat of IRS penalties. If health care
based on conventional drugs and surgery actually worked, you wouldn't have to threaten the citizens with punishment if they chose not to use it. The only reason IRS agents have to be used to bully people into buying health insurance is because our modern sick-care system doesn't work.
Obama's dictatorial approach to health care mirrors the health care system itself, in fact: Oppressive, punitive, widely hated and ridiculously ineffective.
Instead of forcing people to buy into a system that's already broken, Obama would serve the interests of the American people far better by ending the medical racket monopoly
currently being operated by Big Pharma, the FDA, the quack medical journals and corrupt doctors, and instead legalizing healing
by embracing health freedom and the world of natural medicine.
It is quite fascinating that even in a system where natural medicine isn't covered by insurance, and where natural therapies are widely discredited by the FDA, the AMA
and most conventional doctors, record numbers of people seek out natural therapies anyway
because they are more affordable, more effective, safer and more readily compatible with human biology.
The FDA and Big Government don't want people to have a choice in the matter, you see. They want to force everyone to buy into the failed pharmaceutical system that enriches the drug companies, even while keeping the U.S. population suffering from record rates of degenerative disease.
That's why we call it a "sick care" system. It's not about health. It's about making money off a diseased population while denying them access to natural treatments and cures that could save this nation from medical bankruptcy.
Sadly, the US Supreme Court won't be ruling on all that. They're only concerned with whether Obama's attempt to force people to buy a product they don't want and don't need is allowed under the US Constitution. And the answer should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the Constitution: No such powers were ever granted to the federal government.
To force the American people to buy into this broken, corrupt system of quackery and fraud is not merely unconstitutional; it is immoral and an affront to freedom.
Obamacare is, at its core, un-American; and it demonstrates a deep-rooted hatred for the principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded.Sources for this story include:
Court case: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond)