If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

The Great Seal of the United States was created in 1782 but was originally adopted only in a written descriptive form

(Dec. 14, 2010) — U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson has ruled that a major part of the health care law passed in March of this year is unconstitutional.

At issue was whether or not the “individual mandate” requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance by the year 2014 or pay a fine was considered “commerce” and could be regulated by Congress by means of the “Commerce Clause” in the U.S. Constitution.

The Encyclopedia Britannica appears to indicate that the clause was intended by the Founders to prohibit an individual state or group of states to enter into contracts with each other or foreign nations.  Cornell University Law School asserts that “Any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, via the Tenth Amendment. The Commerce Clause has been used to justify Congress’s legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, and has thus led to controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.”

Cornell states that the Commerce Clause was expanded via the passage of FDR’s “New Deal,” parts of which were also declared unconstitutional.  The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which “was designed to promote recovery and reform, encourage collective bargaining for unions, set up maximum work hours (and sometimes prices) and minimum wages, and forbid child labor in industry,” was overturned in part in 1935.

Other reports state that the “individual mandate” part of the health care legislation was ruled unconstitutional, but not  the entire bill passed by Congress in March of this year.  Judge Hudson is reported to have written in his opinion, “An individual’s personal decision to purchase – or decline purchase – (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the U.S. Constitution.”

An editorial in the Kansas City Star claims that Judge Hudson owns stock in a company called Campaign Solutions, Inc. which “helps Republican candidates and causes win elections,” but the connection between his ruling today and his alleged stock ownership is unclear. A similar editorial states that the consulting firm in which Hudson owns stock has “worked for anti-Obamacare crusaders like Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and John McCain.”

The Huffington Post reported last July that Hudson “has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform.”

Judge Hudson reportedly called the health care legislation a “regime” in his opinion which declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.  A representative of the Obama regime, “whom the White House allowed to speak only on the condition of anonymity,” stated that the ruling rendered the entire law “very difficult if not impossible” to implement, although Hudson’s ruling did not address the remainder of the legislation.  However, another report stated that prior to Hudson’s ruling, Obama regime officials claimed that “a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law’s implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don’t take effect until 2014.”

A summary of the 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison states that “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” (#3, para. 2).  According to one source, the Marbury case was the first time the Supreme Court declared something “unconstitutional“, and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government).  Regarding the federal government, the same source states, “Since the U.S. Civil War, the powers of the Federal Government have generally expanded greatly.”

The federal government is expected to appeal the ruling, and two other federal judges have stated that the law is constitutional.  A lawsuit in which 20 states are plaintiffs is still pending.

Despite the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to act on the numerous cases brought before it, the issue of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to hold the position of President and therefore to have signed the bill into law still exists.  A court-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated flight surgeon in the U.S. Army, has begun today.  Lakin is accused of “disobeying a lawful order,” “missing movement,” and “dereliction of duty.”  Lakin’s previous request for discovery, which included Obama’s birth records from Hawaii, was refused by Col. Denise Lind.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I can understand your frustration. I have been waiting two days for something about LTC Lakin to be published so I could comment on that article, but I’m sure you just haven’t commented because you are not happy that he just caved on the whole thing.

    I’m not going to say anything bad about LTc Lakin because I don’t know what pressure was brought to bear on him to make him totally cave. He would have been much better off to have served in Afghanistan for one year than to have to serve 2+ years in prison. I suspect part of the deal (unofficial of course) is that he will spend little or no time in prison in exchange for the cave-in.

    Strange isn’t it that Emanual has to be concerned about his eligibility to be mayor but no one has standing to question Obama’s eligibility.

    Good luck to LTC Lakin and I guess we will now have to wait until Obama attempts to qualify to run again for president, as I understand some states have now passed laws to require presidential candidates to prove they are eligible to be on the ballot. (But someone will have to have standing, of course)
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I don’t believe any states have passed legislation of that type yet, but some have introduced them to be debated when the state legislatures convene between January and April, as is customary. I know Texas is one, and Arizona had one last year which a Republican senator refused to bring to the floor, although it could be revived during the next session.

    1. I’m sure you’re correct. I live in Louisiana and I have personally emailed Gov Jindal 4 times and requested that he ensure that legislation be passed in La requiring proof of qualifications before any name could appear on a ballot in La. Even though there is a promise that every email (on his official site) will be responded to, he has never responded to me.

      Wonder why? of course he’s planning to run himself and of course he is not qualified. While I like him as gov of the state, I’m not for any unqualified person becoming president and that includes Marco Rubio, who is also frequently mentioned.

      Thanks for your response

  2. This is good news but the key issue has not been addressed which is that Obama is not a valid President so the health care Bill cannot even be a valid law and therefore is unconstitutional in its entirety.


    I have to get back to the point of order,that EVERYTHING that the usurper President has signed is bogus and not worth the paper it is printed on.If of course the usurper relents and proves Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr. Lakin wrong,which he can’t and won’t ,then Mr.Obama needs to be arrested,imo.