R3volution: Constructive Notice of Instruction

I have recently learned that the Senate will be voting on their version of the Healthcare Bill at 1 AM, Monday, December 21. Talk about voting on a bill in the middle of the night! Why are they so afraid to let it see the light of day. This is likely a different bill than the one that has been debated

The Albuquerque Journal Washington Bureau Reporter, Michael Coleman, wrote in this morning's Sunday Journal that the New Mexico Delegation has been downplaying recent votes on spending, saying:

"At a time when many Americans are tightening their belts . . . it seems a bit unseemly for Congress to put another $446 Billion on the federal credit card, isn't it? And there's more to come--much more." (Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. p. B2).

Much of that "much more" in spending will come with this takeover of health insurance by the federal government. And much more than spending is the problem. This bill contains the structure to "nudge" (as Marxist Cass Sunstein puts it) every person in the United States to conform to government approved behavior spanning lifestyle choices from food to use of firearms, from exercise to choice of medical treatments. To put it bluntly, this bill, more than any other put forth by this out-of-control government, is about control. Big Brother will be dictating your health insurance . . . or else!

Today, the New Mexico Delegation to the Continental Congress 2009, led by Michael Lunnon--First Delegate, sent this Constructive Notice of Instruction to both New Mexico Senators--"Censorship" Bingaman, and Udall. It was written by Mr. Lunnon, of Gallup, and modeled after one by Rose Lear. It should be sent to every Senator and Congress Critter in the country.

Here it is:

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO OF 1913
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. [Supreme law of the land.]
The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

Sec. 2. [Popular sovereignty.]
All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.

Sec. 3. [Right of self-government.]
The people of the state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state.

Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(EXCERPT)

[Amendment I][Freedom of Religion, of Speech, and of the Press]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sec. 3. [Admission of New States, Territory and Other Property]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. (emphasis added)

To: Senator Jeff Bingaman, (202) 224-5521, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

T0: Senator Tom Udall, (202) 224-6621 http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=home

Dear Senators Bingaman and Udall,

It is my understanding from the news reports that you are scheduled to vote in this Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am. I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, you must vote no or you will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");

Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) ("It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.")

Oregon v. Ashcroff, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.'

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine, 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulative penalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished.

United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 402 , 36 S. Ct. 658, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854. Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government. And we accept as established doctrine that any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power, but solely to the achievement of something plainly within power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. (Emphases added)

Feel free to use this as a model for you own Notice. If you hurry, your senators may get it before they vote!

Long Live the Constitution of the United States!