by Edward Snowden

This article by Edward Snowden was published Sunday in Der Spiegel.

In a very short time, the world has learned much about unaccountable secret agencies and about sometimes illegal surveillance programs. Sometimes the agencies even deliberately try to hide their surveillance of high officials or the public. While the NSA and GCHQ seem to be the worst offenders – this is what the currently available documents suggest – we must not forget that mass surveillance is a global problem in need of global solutions.

Such programs are not only a threat to privacy, they also threaten freedom of speech and open societies. The existence of spy technology should not determine policy. We have a moral duty to ensure that our laws and values limit monitoring programs and protect human rights.

Society can only understand and control these problems through an open, respectful and informed debate. At first, some governments feeling embarrassed by the revelations of mass surveillance initiated an unprecedented campaign of persecution to supress this debate. They intimidated journalists and criminalized publishing the truth. At this point, the public was not yet able to evaluate the benefits of the revelations. They relied on their governments to decide correctly.

Today we know that this was a mistake and that such action does not serve the public interest. The debate which they wanted to prevent will now take place in countries around the world. And instead of doing harm, the societal benefits of this new public knowledge is now clear, since reforms are now proposed in the form of increased oversight and new legislation.

Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.

Translated by Martin Eriksson. This text was written by Edward Snowden on November 1, 2013 in Moscow. It was sent to SPIEGEL staff over an encrypted channel.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-manifesto-for-the-truth/5356919      

https://magazin.spiegel.de/reader/index_SP.html#j=2013&h=45&a=119402581

This is an OUTSTANDING article by David Horowitz that should be read and understood by all lovers of freedom, especially tea party members, conservatives, Republicans and libertarians. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362992/uniting-right-david-horowitz/page/0/2

We do have free will, some of us anyway. Free will allows one to override human nature. Some people want to believe so strongly that they believe lies, they suspend disbelief and common sense. “Some” would be about 90% of the population who may listen to warnings, explanations, etc. but they won’t do anything about it until it actually happens.

The brain, genetically speaking, is part of the immune system, it responds when attacked, when hungry, basic needs, etc. An action of free will is a convergence of meta-information over and above the brain’s normal immune functions. An action of free will may not have been tested against nature, it usually isn’t.  We read about it somewhere and it is now part of the meta-information of our life.  Seldom have we actually burned our finger on the hot stove.  Properly used, an intended action of free will must first be tested against natural laws, against reality. Unfortunately, that testing rarely happens and ,instead, implementation is attempted on untested theories, ideologies and beliefs. Of the 10% remaining in the population who were not true believers, then 9% of those remaining are thinkers who will agree on an action plan. But only 1% will study the plan and test it against natural law before acting.

Ah utopia … if only human nature did not interfere, then everything could be perfect [satire].  You might like Robert Heinlein’s book “For us the Living.” Note that the proceeds from sale of the book are given to human exploration of outer space.  It seems Heinlein did not have much hope for the folk who remain on earth.  The economics in the book are interesting for utopian readers and briefly explained at this wiki.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us,_The_Living:_A_Comedy_of_Customs

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows, and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse…Almost all our contemporary movements showed in their early stages a hostile attitude toward the family, and did all they could to discredit and disrupt it. They did it by undermining the authority of parents; by facilitating divorce; by taking over responsibility for feeding, educating, and entertaining the children; and by encouraging illegitimacy. … a disruption of the family, whatever its causes, fosters automatically a collective spirit and creates a responsiveness to the appeal of mass movements.” ~ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.  Download it for free, here: http://www.gobookee.org/true-believer-eric-hoffer/

“They were running the biggest start-up in the world, and they didn’t have anyone who had run a start-up, or even run a business,” said David Cutler, a Harvard professor and health adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign.” …much less someone who had run a software business or a healthcare business. The person Obama appointed to run the FDA had never even set foot in a biotech company when she was appointed, yet she was responsible for regulating the entire food and drug industries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/challenges-have-dogged-obamas-health-plan-since-2010/2013/11/02/453fba42-426b-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story_4.html 

Today, Obama issued an Executive Order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” which even the UN IPCC acknowledged is not happening and they don’t know why their climate models are not working. There is no smoking gun; CO2 is not pollution at its current atmospheric concentration or even at several times higher concentrations, nor is human-caused CO2 causing rapid temperature increases. A President interested in helping his country would tear down the EPA bureaucracy created for climate change, as Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister is doing. But not President Obama. Acting directly contrary to abundant scientific evidence, he orders a long list of government departments to become active at all levels across the country to prepare for climate change. So, since there has not been any climate change and there is no real world data that projects unusual climate change, what is Obama’s actual intent? Why do we need so much government control? It is not necessary, it will not be effective, but it already is and will be very costly. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-united-states-impacts-climate-change

“The perception here is of a United States where security has trumped liberty, intelligence agencies run amok (vacuuming up data of friend and foe alike), and the once-admired “checks and balances” built into American governance and studied by European schoolchildren have become, at best, secret reviews of secret activities where opposing arguments get no hearing.” – New York Times columnist Roger Cohen

On the front page of the New York Times, August 19, 2000, “Ages-Old Polar Icecap Is Melting, Scientists Find“ … but ten days later a correction was unceremoniously appended to the bottom of the article after interrogation of the claims by Dr. Fred Singer in the Wall Street Journal.  But by that time, the erroneous claims in the NYT were replicated around the world by every major newspaper, television, magazine and later by an Oscar award winning, error-filled documentary movie.  Everyone was suddenly alarmed about the fate of polar bears and worried about global warming.

Now in 2013 the result is still evident in a very poorly informed public, where, in U.S. alone, the people have allowed their government to spend $120 billion (and the spending continues full tilt) chasing an erroneous, unverified global warming theory.

The original NYT article said the following:

“…for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate. The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.”

NOT appearing on the front page, but appended to the bottom of the archived article 10 days later was this…”Correction: August 29, 2000, Tuesday A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming.”

Hat tip: JunkScience.com  http://junkscience.com/2013/10/18/revisiting-ipcc-officials-north-pole-melts-after-50-million-year-freeze-thats-not-his-only-problem/

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/19/us/ages-old-icecap-at-north-pole-is-now-liquid-scientists-find.html

The advice of Andrew Mellon to Herbert Hoover.  President Hoover did not accept that advice and the Great Depression continued for more than 10 years.

Your government has just acted exactly opposite to your best interests and the best interests of the United States.  They have authorized increased government spending instead of making the severe Federal budget cuts that are necessary to avoid the severe economic crisis directly ahead.  Instead of liquidating mal-investments in the Federal government regulatory structure, your political leaders have guaranteed economic stagnation followed by depression.

Have you been to Washington DC recently?  It is in a massive hiring and building boom.  New roads, new buildings, new neighborhoods all around town.  Instead of reducing the cost and complexity of government regulations, we are hiring more and more regulators.  Obamacare alone requires 159 new agencies, boards or committees.

Evidence clearly shows that increasing government spending reduces economic growth.  When growth stagnates, payment of interest on debt becomes more difficult and eventually impossible.  Government and central bank attempt to keep interest rates low in order to reduce the government’s cost of borrowing more and more to pay for ever-larger government.  But this is counter-productive mal-investment.  The low interest rates are further disincentive for private industry to invest in production and innovation.  Companies are better off buying back their own stock and downsizing employment in a stagnant economy.

The graphic immediately above shows 10 years of OECD data (more than 80 countries) of government spending as a percent of GDP versus average growth rate of GDP.  The growth rate of the US for 2012 was 2.2% and government expenditures in the US were 39.5% of GDP.  The efficiency of US government expenditures was less than the average of OECD countries.  Some economists argue that the U.S. growth rate is overstated.

Raising the debt ceiling, that is, authorizing further increases to federal spending as Congress and the President have just done, will be counter-productive, resulting in lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and a downward spiraling economy.  This is irresponsible government.

What is needed is significant reduction in federal government spending toward an optimum level around 20% of GDP, along with reductions and optimizations in state and local government budgets.  It can be done.  The state of Wisconsin, which has a balanced budget, recently passed a $100 million reduction in taxes.  Wisconsin and other states like Texas are showing the way.

Failure to reduce government spending, not just reduce the rate of growth of spending, is negligence on the part of political leaders.  We need negative growth of spending, but well managed, not overly severe, and spread over years.  A balanced budget is just the first step toward fiscal sanity, but they have refused to do that.  Beyond a balanced budget, deeper cuts will be required for years in order to reduce the existing outstanding government debt.  Managing sustained negative growth of spending, spread over many years, is required to minimize the inevitable financial pain.   This implies huge reform in government agencies, government employment policies, government employee incentives, and oversight and regulations.  Size and complexity of government at all levels must be reduced.

Excessive government spending has already pushed the U.S. economy into a downward spiral.  We are in that downward spiral now.  Government, in Washington D.C., in other countries, and in most U.S. state and local governments, is throwing gasoline on a dangerous fire.  If this were a healthy economy, we would have experienced a recovery that included several quarters of double digit growth following the severe financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009.  Instead, we have 2% growth, massive dropouts from the labor force, and leaps in enrollment for welfare programs such as Food Stamps.

 Fourteen million people in America are receiving monthly, permanent disability checks.  Since 2008, more people have been placed on permanent disability than in jobs.  Federal spending on social programs is growing 18 times faster than the economy.  Over 100 million people in the U.S. are now receiving Federal welfare.  Social Security and Medicare payments are not welfare but rather insurance benefits which were paid for by employers and employees in their wages.

The United States is already bankrupt but refusing to re-organize or even acknowledge its problems.  “According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.  In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn’t be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities.” ~ Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Chris Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is president of Bingham Consulting LLC. Mr. Bill Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, is a senior policy adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636

Growth Rate of Total Federal Spending versus Growth Rate of Median Household Income

During the economic collapse known as “The Great Depression,” Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury for under three Presidents, advised U.S. President Herbert Hoover, “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.  It will purge the rottenness out of the system.  High costs of living and high living will come down.  People will work harder, live a more moral life.  Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”  “Additionally, he advocated weeding out “weak” banks as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This “weeding out” was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation. He advocated spending cuts to keep the federal budget balanced, and opposed fiscal stimulus measures.” (1)  President Hoover rejected Mellon’s advice.  “The Great Depression” lasted fully 10 years, arguably until the U.S. entered World War II.   

That was then.  Today, the mal-investments are in different places than they were in 1928.  Today, the United States needs to liquidate many agencies of government at all levels, re-institute banking laws such as the Glass-Steagall Act (The Banking Act of 1933), weed out high risk derivatives trading by too-big-to-fail banks, restore solvent banking practices and eliminate zero reserve banking, regain public control of the Federal Reserve System and institute prudent banking practices there.  We also must eliminate all U.S. liabilities to global banks such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and eliminate obligations to the United Nations and similar supranational agencies because these supranational agencies cannot be managed under the U.S. Constitutional system of law without relinquishing the sovereign liberties of American citizens.  Foreign aid must be eliminated for some years; it is financial insanity to borrow from one country and give it to a third country.  The total burden of regulations on private industry must be reduced and optimized.

As in the Great Depression, if we do not act appropriately, these liquidations will occur whether we like it not.  We will have what has been called “creative destruction.”  We have a choice to insert new politicians who will manage the liquidations to minimize the pain and suffering, or else we can continue to ignore our incompetent, thieving, debt-and-power-addicted politicians and then economy and government will certainly crash, perhaps brought about by violent efforts to overthrow our corrupted government in an American Spring, or perhaps brought about by a futile and unnecessary war with dissatisfied creditor nations.

• World Bank reports US GDP growth for 2012 at 2.2%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
• 2012 US government expenditures (fed, state, local) were $6.1887 trillion  http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/year_spending_2012USbn_15bs2n#usgs302
• 2012 US GDP was $15.6848 trillion.
• US government percent of GDP in 2012 was 39.5%.
• Graphic is on page 9 of this report: http://frihetspartiet.net/function.pdf.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon

Do you think you know how bad our debt really is?   Watch this entire video.   Sit down first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yibVqwqMLHM …. it’s long, but it’s fact filled and ends with an utter knock-out punch to the lie you are being told about our debt.

“The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees’ future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP…”    

“According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.”

“In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn’t be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities.” ~ Mr. Chris Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is president of Bingham Consulting LLC. Mr. Bill Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, is a senior policy adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.http

“Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt: Hiding the government’s liabilities from the public makes it seem that we can tax our way out of mounting deficits. We can’t.”  

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636

Dear Mr. President, Dear Congress, Dear Justices of The Supreme Court: I am tired of statists in Washington D.C. who think our Constitution and my liberty are negotiable. I am tired of your hubris and your thieving, unconstitutional ways. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) in Obamacare is unconstitutional. The tax penalty in Obamacare is unconstitutional. If these words seem contemptuous, they are. Your evident contempt for the Constitution and citizens is reflecting back on you and revealed in polls of the American people.

Let me remind you: “A constitution is the form of government delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the power that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-dealing stroke must proceed from the same hand.”

“The legislatures are creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution; they derive their powers from the Constitution. It is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.”

“The Constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the legislature, in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the creator, and the other of the creature.”

“The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of the legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit in which it must move. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is absolutely void.”

“It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution to divest one citizen of his right, and vest it in another, without full compensation; and if the legislature may do so, upon full indemnification, it cannot of itself constitutionally determine upon the amount of the compensation.”

“The right of trial by jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away.” [For example, the parts of the NDAA which permit the President to imprison an American indefinitely without trial are null and void, and so a federal judge has ruled. But why would the President insist on such power and why would Congress agree to such a law in the first place?]

Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is, ipso facto, void; and it is the duty of the court so to declare it.”

~ Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, Federal Court, 2nd District. Dallas.

The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the United States in their sovereign capacities, but, as the Constitution declares, by the people of the United States. Martin v. Hunters’ Lessee. 324.

The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in the state governments. Ibid.

The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, either expressly or by necessary implication. Ibid.

The Constitution, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; the words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and not in a sense either unreasonably restricted or enlarged. Ibid.

“The government of the Union is a government of the people; it emanates from them; its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” M’Culloch v. Maryland.

The mere existence of a law such as ACA Obamacare, which is now over 10,000 pages in length without including referenced statues and laws, contradicts the possibility of benefit for the people. The government in full blown hubris passed a law that no citizen can read or understand. There is no acceptable excuse for this unconstitutional abuse of power.

The Constitution, art. 2, sect. 2, 3, with regard to the appointment and commissioning of officers by the President, contemplates three distinct operations — 1. The nomination: this is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary. 2. The appointment: this is also the act of the President, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 3. The commission: to grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 155.

The President and his appointee the Secretary of Health and Human Services have no authority under the Constitution to appoint a board known as IPAB empowered as contemplated with its assigned functions. Congress has no authority to pass a law such as Obamacare which would enable or fund a board such IPAB. All laws, regulations and boards regarding expenses and benefits taxed upon citizens must be subject to oversight review, cancellation, change or defunding at any time by the elected representatives of the people. This task may not be delegated by Congress. Unconstitutionally, IPAB does not allow for proper oversight by Congress or the President.

The healthcare law known as ACA or Obamacare requires the President and Congress to take up the IPAB’s recommendations quickly, and then lawmakers and the President in agreement can only stop the IPAB’s cuts in payments to doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers from taking effect by passing equivalent cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. If there is no agreement on counterbalancing budget cuts, then IPAB’s cuts are automatically enacted. Your medical procedure might be balanced against a new parking lot in Washington, or a grant for a robotic squirrel, but most likely there would be no counterbalancing agreement and IPAB’s cuts would occur. Your health would suffer. Compensation which is the private property of doctors and other healthcare providers would be reduced without compensation. IPAB is an unconstitutional delegation of power to an unelected agency. Health care decisions may not be made by a group of unelected, unaccountable individuals such as IPAB. Congressional oversight and control is required to protect access to care for citizens.

Furthermore, there are no candidates willing to be nominated to serve on such a highly contentious and controversial IPAB board. This speaks volumes about the absence of wisdom in this ACA legislation. Members of IPAB can and, no doubt, will be sued by plaintiffs who have been injured by IPAB decisions and the courts must take up these cases. There is no protection of executive discretion for IPAB members from potentially huge awards from the courts. The right of trial by jury cannot be denied.

“Where the head of a department acts in a case in which executive discretion is to be exercised, in which he is the mere organ of executive will, any application to a court to control, in any respect, his construct, would be rejected without hesitation. But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the particular direction of the President, and the performance of which the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden, — as, for
example, to record a commission, or a patent for land, which has received all the legal solemnities, or to give a copy of such record, — in such cases, the courts of the country are no further excused from the duty of giving judgment that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were performed by a person not at the head of a department” Ibid. 171. IPAB members may be held liable in courts for injuries to patients, doctors and other healthcare providers. ACA Obamacare impairs both Congress and the President in their ability and timing to change the decisions of IPAB. IPAB is therefore unconstitutional.

“An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become the law of the land.” Ibid. 176, 177, 180.

“An act of Congress cannot invest the Supreme Court with an authority not warranted by the Constitution.” Ibid. 175, 176.

“If a title [for example IPAB] be derived from a legislative act, which the legislature might constitutionally pass, if the act be clothed with all the requisite forms of law, a court sitting as a court of law cannot sustain a suit by one individual against another, founded on the allegation that the act is a nullity in consequence of the impure motives which influenced certain members of the legislature which passed the act.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 131. In other words, in any case between an alleged injured party and members of IPAB, the defense may not use any potential inadequacies of the ACA Obamacare law or alleged misadventures of Congress.

“It may well be doubted whether the nature of society and government does not prescribe some limits to the legislative power; and if any be prescribed, where are they to be found, if the property of an individual, fairly and honestly acquired, may be seized without compensation?” Ibid. IPAB cannot be constitutionally vested with the power to determine the value of a doctor’s services to an individual. By all rights, the contract is between the doctor and the patient. To state otherwise would imply that either the patient is the property of the government or the skills and services of the doctor are the property of the government.

“A law which authorizes the discharge of a contract by a smaller sum, or at a different time, or in a different manner, than the parties have stipulated, impairs its obligation, by substituting, for the contract of the parties, one which they never entered into, and to the performance of which, of course, they never had consented.” Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash.

The Constitution of the United States, (art. 1, sect. 10,) declares that no state shall make any law impairing contracts. But, a law passed by Congress may impair a contract between individuals (Evans v. Eaton), however if that federal law requires seizure of private property (and compensation for the skilled services of a doctor are clearly the private property of the doctor,) then that doctor must be fairly compensated. The Constitution requires that the doctor be fairly compensated and prevents Congress from determining the fail value of that compensation. Unconstitutionally, ACA Obamacare requires IPAB to determine the value of compensation that the government will pay to the doctor and then avoids the requirement stipulated in the Constitution (that the government may not determine the value of the doctor’s services) by requiring state involvement.

“The provision in the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.” Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters, Sup. Ct. U.S.

Deceptively, ACA Obamacare attempts to deny free commerce and contracts between providers and patients by requiring state participation rather than providing a national health insurance exchange. The 5th amendment protects citizens from the federal government, but not from the states.

“The objection to a law, on the ground of its impairing the obligation of a contract, can never depend on the extent of the change which the law may make in it; any deviation from its terms, by postponing or accelerating the period of performance which it prescribes, imposing conditions not expressed in the contract, or dispensing with the performance of those which are, however minute, or apparently immaterial in their effect upon the contract of the parties, impairs its obligation.” Green et Al. v. Biddle.

“It is a rule of construction that exceptions from a power mark its extent.” Gibbons v. Ogden. (191)

“The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several states. IBID(193) It does not comprehend that commerce which is completely internal which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states.” IBID. (194) The ruling of the Roberts Supreme Court regarding the individual mandate in ACA Obamacare conflicts with this judicial precedent. Since commerce between individuals is an exception to the powers in the commerce clause, then the tax penalty in ACA Obamacare which depends on that commerce between individuals is unconstitutional.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/279825-specialty-groups-back-ipab-repeal#ixzz2hAzch7S7
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook