If one considers our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment to be an enforceable right against the federal government [forbidding the federal government from exercising powers not delegated by the people under the Constitution], and one also considers Article V of our Constitution to be a guaranteed procedure requiring consent of the people via a constitutional amendment prior to Congress exercising powers not delegated under the Constitution, then it would likely appear that the spirit under which Title 18
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law was adopted would apply to every member of Congress who is now working to enact into law the
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 if said law were adopted and enforced. The statute reads:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
It is an irrefutable fact that the American People have never discussed, debated and then given their consent via Article V of the federal Constitution to a power authorizing Congress to tax for, spend on, regulate and legislate into law health care choices which the People of the United States will be obligated to adhere to, nor have the People of the united States, somewhere in the Constitution, given their consent to Congress to enforce the countless regulatory powers mentioned in the
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
The statute above mentioned makes it a crime for any person, which I assume would include members of Congress, who acts under the color of law to willfully deprive any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution. The question thus raised is, does the
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 if enacted into law and enforced, deprive the American People under color of that law the Constitutional requirement that the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, must first approve the necessary regulatory powers to Congress over the subject matter mentioned in the Act before it may be enforced? In addition, if the
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 is enacted into law and enforced, would the people of the united States not be deprived, under color of law, their Constitutional guarantee that 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?
I for one would find every member in Congress who has taken an oath to support our federal Constitution, guilty of Deprivation of rights under color of law! What say you?
JWK
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),