Unlike the choice to purchase other forms of insurance of which preclusive conditions are limited to the possession of property and whose policies are attached to only the identity of the individual, Obamacare is the first law in American history which exploits the involuntary possession of a living body and which attaches the mandates to purchase insurance upon the involuntary existence of that human body, not just the identity of the individual.
Without dispossessing the living body, how does the individual abstain from participation in the purchase, enrollment and/or penalties of the individual insurance mandates in this Healthcare Bill? This is truly frightening...
Moreover, it is unconstitutional by violation of the right to life and the liberty to live it without being provided with the legal option to take no action. Affluent citizens with means and resources, who have chosen to pay for health care costs to maintain and care for their own body, and the state of health therein, are left without this individual choice under Obamacare. Therefore, the only option in seeking release from the individual mandates of this law is...well, death.
That's right...death is the only way for the individual to lawfully dispossess their body, and thereby be released from the purchase, enrollment and penalty mandates of Obamacare. This is unprecedented in American history. Since the possession of a human body is the preclusive condition used to mandate either the purchase, penalty or enrollment in some form of individual insurance under Obamacare, the one question every American should be passionately berating their congressional representatives with is:
What provision does this law make for abstaining from its mandate without penalty for inaction, which is based on the constitutional right for me to seek inertial existence?
Of course our law-smithing representatives in government would agree that no law should "trap" free citizens into compliance without providing options to inertly abstain with a lawful choice to commit no action.
The right to take no action with respect to my own body shall not be forfeited.
Congress shall not infringe upon the right of the possessor of their living body to seek an inertial (harmlessly inactive), safe, healthy existence without obligation, penalty, enrollment to or obligation with respect to the direct or indirect unchosen obligation to possess that body. This shall apply whether or not any product, service or agreement is deemed necessary to mandate action to purchase, transact, earn, labor, apply, make, register, enroll, join or take possession of any product, service or agreement which has been enacted as a direct, or indirect, and unchosen consequence of possessing a human body.
In doing so, the Obama administration has now made inertial existence unlawful, for it is between the realms of the right to life and the right to not die where we find Obama’s biophobic government now meddling. The Obama administration has taken a truly malevolent stride toward assuming jurisdiction over the individual’s right to choose an inertial existence and maintain the right in determination of what constitutes care and maintenance while in possession of their own living body.
I have a right to choose an unmandated option thereby escaping the preclusive conditions warranting legal compliance with any law. Obamacare is the first law in American history which offers no exempt status for a choice to remain inactively inert and ineffectual. No government in service of the people has the legal authority to enact such a law which mandates any particular behavior without offering exempt status for choosing to remain alive in a state of lawful inaction.
In one faction, supporters of Obamacare use the example of the auto insurance laws which mandate the purchase of insurance in order to drive a car as an argument in favor of Obamacare. Their ignorance is not suprising. The individual citizen has a right to choose whether or not they want to own and operate a vehicle, and by this choice they choose whether or not to purchase auto insurance. The insurance policy is attached to the vehicle, not the body of the individual. The car can be sold or dispossessed, the body cannot. The option to abstain from the mandates of auto insurance laws are provided in the right to not drive a car, take the bus and/or telecommute, etc. However, under the Obamacare insurance mandates, individuals do not have a choice to abstain from the ownership and "operation" of a living body and the natural-born state of health which resides within it. Obamacare disregards the fact that human beings do not choose to be born, but they do choose to drive a car. Yet, Obamacare will do the equivilent of forcing you to pay for auto insurance regardless whether you drive a car or not. Or, if you can't afford insurance, you will be forced to enroll in a policy which others will be forced to pay for, even if you don't own a car, or have a license to drive!
The problem vintage Americans find with this form of legislation is based on the unnatural impact that such a deeply intimate law has with the universal truth that, at the very roots of America’s origins lie the natural understanding that this nation and our Constitution were founded on the truth that we were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights and a human body to possess. We understand and defend the fact that God is the One who affords us with freedom, life and the pursuit of joy within that body. The nearest of God’s image we find in these blessings is the human body, formed in His image by His very hands and breath.
Vintage Americans understand these rights do not come from our government. Thus, the conflict presented by the imposition of a law like Obamacare is that it attempts to “counterfeit” the identity of God, as Healer, by assuming jurisdiction over the decisions regarding the care, maintenance, healing and fitness of His creation, which is the human body.
As another example, Obamacare supporters use the mandates of tax laws to argue in favor. This is also ignorant. Tax laws give the federal government the legal authority to tax the transaction of money or the earning of income resulting from the chosen behaviors of paid labor and/or the purchase of goods or services. Abstaining from paying taxes is unlawful not because of a choice to not just pay taxes, it is unlawful due to the prerequisite choice to take possession of and/or make a transaction of monetary value prior. The law is only incumbent upon a conscious choice to commit an initial action. Being born with your body was not your choice, despite your experience of possessing it now. The government does not have the legal authority to exploit any unchosen human condition for mandating monetary remittance from the free citizens of the United States.
Possession of one’s own living body is a passive condition. It is not chosen. Therefore, the mandates which make it unlawful to abstain from enrollment, participation, compliance or remittance under Obamacare are unconstitutional because, unlike the the ability to choose to earn a living or make transactions requiring taxation, individuals cannot make the living choice to not possess a human body, which is the sole human condition warranting the purchase, penalty and enrollment in health care insurance under Obamacare. The federal government does not have the legal authority to mandate action, remittance or penalty for an un-chosen condition resulting in the choice of any individual to pursue the continuance of the inertial state existing before the implementation of such a law, nor does the federal government have the legal authority to mandate death, as an option, to remedy any lawful, un-chosen, inert condition.
...Simply put, the only legal power the federal government has is one which can only prevent the commission of an effectual act deemed to be adverse to society, not force you to commit an effectual act it deems beneficial to society.
Another example often cited in support of Obamacare, and one which people also misunderstand, are Good Samaritan laws. Many people think Good Samaritan laws are legislation which attempt to force the actions of bystanders to help when a victim is in need of assistance. This is false. Good Samaritan laws are laws protecting from liability those who choose to act in aid of others who are injured or ill and, thereby doing so, may unintentionally cause further injury. Good Samaritan laws are meant to encourage people to make a choice to act in a helpful way without having to fear litigation or penalty for non-action or an inertial response. Good Samaritan laws do not force anyone to act in a certain way. There is no penalty for choosing not to act by the common bystander because the individual has the right to not render themselves to a situation which they deem threatening or adversely impactful upon them, their property or their family. Individuals, or groups of individuals, do not have a legal right to force me to act because of their emergency when I deem their situation potentially injurious to myself.
Therefore, using Good Samaritan laws to justify Obamacare is the most ignorant argument of all. The mandates under Obamacare which make it unlawful to abstain from enrollment, participation, compliance or remittance are, again, found unconstitutional because, unlike the choice to act with the intent to help another individual(s), free people are not legally obligated to act, or make transactions, in respect of their own body, and the possession thereof, if they deem that taking no action is most beneficial to the welfare of their own physical being. For example, if by unintended, lawful circumstances you find yourself in danger, you are not under legal obligation to call for help or obligate others to assist you. You have a constitutional right to an inertial existence. Contrarily, if your body is in danger, others do not have a right to be asked by you to help.
The Obama administration has enacted this law in an attempt to mandate the right of others to your request for their help. Illness and injury which requires medical attention are passive conditions which do not afford the individual with the legal right to have their care paid for, or provided by others.
A final example used by Obamacare supporters is to argue that military draft and selective service laws require compliant action by U.S. citizens and therefore serve as a model for commanding actions like paying for or enrolling in insurance. This is an unintelligent position as well. There are two conditions which legally defeat this argument. Military draft and selective service enrollment laws are enacted as 1.) part of a national defense against the threat of hostile enemies of the state, national insurance is not a defense against hostile enemies of the state, and, most importantly, 2.) compliance with these laws are free of charge to anyone, by anyone, from anyone. In fact, participation in military service pays the participant for the choice to comply.
Therefore, mandates which make it unlawful to abstain from participation, enrollment, compliance or remittance under Obamacare are unconstitutional because, unlike the military draft and selective service acts, Obamacare is not free to everyone, and is not enacted in the interest of national defense against enemies of the state, nor does it compensate the participant for choosing to comply. The forced act of purchasing or enrolling in Obamacare health insurance is illegal because if damage to the insured “property” results in its death, there is no longer a need for disbursement. If insured property is destroyed, the owner of that property is compensated.
How does Obamacare compensate for the fatal death of a human body when the owner of that body is...well, dead? It can’t. It only compensates for tertiary services when passive, un-chosen conditions arise and the owner’s life is allowed to continue. Or, does the Obama administration now portend to proclaim that the human body, when ill or injured, is now the property of the federal government? We can be certain that the United States declared the third-party ownership of another person's body, illegal under the emancipation proclamation.
These clarifications are important because they illustrate the circumstances under which the federal government does not now, nor will ever have, the Constitutional legal authority to enact laws which demand action for purposes unrelated to the individual’s right over the care of their own human body.
They illustrate that no law can force or compel an individual to act from an inertial state, or state of harmlessness, or static ineffectuality, as Obamacare will attempt to force Americans to do. By proceeding in such a manner, Obamacare promotes a precedence which advocates the potential for the federal government to require the purchase of any privately offered product or service if such a purchase is merely deemed necessary by the federal government. Obamacare makes it plausible that the federal government would be able to mandate the purchase of things like automobiles (deemed fit under environmental protection), or food (deemed appropriate under health care legislation), or housing (deemed fit under energy legislation). Obamacare is nothing more than a gateway law to eventual total control over the personal lives of free Americans.
In order for an individual mandate to purchase insurance to be constitutional, the Obama Administration must contrive an argument which twists the meaning of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in such a perverse way that it will declare inactivity, or inert existence, to be an actual effectual behavior which adversely impacts the general welfare of society, under the guise of health care cost management. Essentially, Obamacare will outlaw being sick or injured without insurance because the Obama administration will have determined that the purchase of insurance is the only possible way to prevent loss from these human conditions. And, in order to do this, it will have to assume jurisdiction over the determination of the positive and negative effects of every possible, and imagineable, human condition and behavior.
Never in the history of the United States has the federal government enacted a law which attempts to penalize free citizens for choosing to not purchase a product or service from other Americans which the government has autonomously deemed a necessary transaction for the welfare and/or care of an individual’s own human body.
Ironically, it is within the vestiges of the most liberal revolution in human history where we find the legal protection of one’s individual right to assume jurisdiction over one’s own physical wellbeing, and the protection of the right to establish a private relationship with a doctor. Roe vs. Wade.
...As human beings, we have a God-given right, not a government-given right, to remain lawfully inert with regard to our own state of being, our health, and our living body, without the threat of penalty or obligation to act against it or, by a tertiary determination, in interest of it.
The United States government does not have the legal authority to mandate a behavior of any citizen to act with respect to the care, healing, maintenance of their own inert body which was the manifestation of one’s un-chosen circumstance of being born. To do so implements federal ownership of the human bodies of citizens and the functions those bodies perform.
In this light, the Obama administration is coming damningly close to mandating the issuance of a federal “mark” upon the human body, in the form of an insurance policy associated with it, and by mandating the possession of a national identification card without providing an option for opting out of the system, penalty free. (Being enrolled in a government program free of charge to you still penalizes someone else by forcing them to pay for your insurance). Free citizens have a right to choose life affirming behavior which relinquishes the law’s hold on them without penalty. You have a right to choose not to murder. You have a right to choose not to steal. You have a right to choose not to lie. You have a right to choose not to act.
Therefore, it is plausible that Obama is attempting to mandate the compliance, remittance, enrollment and/or participation in a system simply for purpose of allowing the federal government to slowly and incrementally gain jurisdiction over and possession of the human bodies of the citizens it serves, under a federal attempt to assume approval, through licensure in the form of insurance coverage, over the event of being born.
When death becomes the only option for seeking an inertial existence with one’s own body, the federal government has stepped over a very distinct, very dangerous, very evil boundary. Obamacare has crossed this line.
Repeal this law, completely, and support a health care reform bill which supports our right to determine the manner of our own inertial existence, the manner of our relationship with our healer, and the method of care of our own body.
