GOP RESOLUTION: OBAMACARE AS A VIOLATION OF THE 13th AMENDMENT

[emilynghiem]

F I N A L L Y ! ! !
Special thanks to "Avatar" for explaining in plain terms of forced servitude (that since health care is not free but requires the labor, time, expertise or services of others, then "free health care" cannot be forced on others against their will or beliefs but provided by those consenting to do so).

RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) AS VIOLATING THE THIRTEENTH (13th) AMENDMENT

Whereas, the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 6, 1865, reads:

“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Whereas, Sect. 17 of the North Carolina state constitution also reads: “Slavery and involuntary servitude. Slavery is forever prohibited. Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited.”

Whereas, the term indentured servitude refers to a contractual relationship that exists whereby one person engages in labor for the benefit another, usually in return for exchange for clothing, food, shelter, or other essentials (instead of money); and

Whereas, since indentured servitude is forbidden in the United States by constitutional amendment, it is particularly audacious when the government itself, through policy and legislation, creates a condition in some individuals of servitude for others; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court, in the case Bailey v. Alabama (1911), defined “involuntary servitude” as: “that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit” (219 U.S. 219, at pg. 241) and held that the right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment is inalienable; and

Whereas, the Bailey decision announced a principle of broad application that says a contract for service is consistent with the Thirteenth Amendment ONLY IF the contractor “can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or a continuance of the service.”

Whereas, the healthcare law may not necessarily be a contract (under the definition of Bailey), but the spirit of the decision would seem to suggest that a law forcing or compelling performance for the benefit of another is consistent with the Thirteenth Amendment ONLY IF the individual can elect at any time to break it (without punishment); and

Whereas, Obamacare, through its forced mandate and subsequent higher (significantly higher) insurance prices, is requiring those who can afford to purchase health insurance to also purchase it for others who cannot afford it; and

Whereas, the federal government, through the healthcare law, is directly forcing a class of citizens to work to serve the benefit of others; and

Whereas, an individual may opt not to purchase healthcare insurance under the government plan and pay the penalty instead (ie, the tax). That person would have no health insurance and nothing to show for that payment, but another person would get the benefit of that forced payment.

Whereas, although those who are forced to purchase (unsubsidized) government insurance plans do NOT receive any benefit from those they serve, the Pitt County GOP believes the servitude amounts to that of the type forbidden under the thirteenth amendment.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Pitt County GOP opposes the Affordable Healthcare bill as unconstitutional, being violative, on its face, of the Thirteenth Amendment.

About the Author:
http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/about-the-author/

 

[G.T.]

Shows you how well/serious they take their jobs. They voted to repeal it countless times over how many years now - - and this just now rings a bell to the derps? Hilarious.

 

[rightwinger]

Damn

And I thought Republicans had played all their repeal Obamacare cards

But equating it to slavery is just getting ridiculous

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That's a pretty weak argument. The best constitutional argument against obozocare is that health care is not one of the listed powers of congress and hence, by the tenth amendment, it is a state matter.

BTW, if involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, how do you justify jury duty and the military draft?

 

[G.T.]

Damn

And I thought Republicans had played all their repeal Obamacare cards

But equating it to slavery is just getting ridiculous

They don't really believe it. Hence the tardiness as opposed to timeliness.

 

[chikenwing]

Shows you how well/serious they take their jobs. They voted to repeal it countless times over how many years now - - and this just now rings a bell to the derps? Hilarious.

What does the turd of a bill say about the ones that crafted it,and the ones the still fluff it daily??

 

[rightwinger]

As bad as they are....even Republicans will not be dumb enough to sign up to this crap legislation

<well....maybe Ted Cruz is>

 

[Avatar4321]

Damn

And I thought Republicans had played all their repeal Obamacare cards

But equating it to slavery is just getting ridiculous

Only because you can't beat the argument.

 

[bendog]

This is huge. LOL

 

[G.T.]

Damn

And I thought Republicans had played all their repeal Obamacare cards

But equating it to slavery is just getting ridiculous

Only because you can't beat the argument.

You cant be serious.



Even the Republicans don't believe it to be an argument - else they're pretty fucking derelict of their duty

 

[rightwinger]

Damn

And I thought Republicans had played all their repeal Obamacare cards

But equating it to slavery is just getting ridiculous

Only because you can't beat the argument.

pun?

 

[rightwinger]

Trust me

In an election year, no Republican would put their name to this. It would go over worse than intentional rape

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Which is why I am in favor of a single payer system.

 

[g5000]

If ObamaCare is slavery because it requires "those who can afford to purchase health insurance to also purchase it for others who cannot afford it", then so are all social programs like SCHIP and welfare.

So is TARP slavery.

It's an idiotic argument which I am sure has already been addressed by case law.

 

[bendog]

Trust me

In an election year, no Republican would put their name to this. It would go over worse than intentional rape

Ah, we need a movement to require gop candidates take a pledge to support this!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If ObamaCare is slavery because it requires "those who can afford to purchase health insurance to also purchase it for others who cannot afford it", then so are all social programs like SCHIP and welfare.

So is TARP slavery.

It's an idiotic argument which I am sure has already been addressed by case law.

No, those things too are slavery to the State.

Giving money that belongs to someone else to another individual for them to receive services, food, a home, healthcare, etc...is a form of slavery.

No different than taxation being theft (or extortion). I will say bringing up the 13th is rather silly considering the scotus didn't bother to make such an argument. The State is not interested in following the letter of the law. To do so greatly curtails their ability to appease special interest voter blocs with handouts and freebies. (from someone elses wallet.)

 

[G.T.]

lol @ taxation being theft

geek go start your own country then

 

[TakeAStepBack]

lol @ taxation being theft

geek go start your own country then

That's a really impressive argument you put forth there, Dullard.

 

[G.T.]

lol @ taxation being theft

geek go start your own country then

That's a really impressive argument you put forth there, Dullard.

yea its about six decibels above the whole taxation being theft argument

 

[emilynghiem]

Shows you how well/serious they take their jobs. They voted to repeal it countless times over how many years now - - and this just now rings a bell to the derps? Hilarious.

About as "serious and committed" as people who SAY they want "Singlepayer" but won't put time or effort (much less pay the costs) of setting this up through their Party system.

Paul Glover of the Green Party wrote up his system of local health care co-ops
and has mentored workers to organize business community networks to
manage their own currency and labor exchanges.

But when I talk to fellow "pro-choice" supporters with the Democrat Party,
they keep expecting this system to go through the Federal Govt without
regard, inclusion, representation or 'any concept' of beliefs opposed to this.

The idea of funding and running "their own system according to their beliefs"
is completely foreign.

So what kind of "serious dedication" is that, if people who CLAIM they
believe in "singlepayer health care" aren't willing to work and pay for it?

But just expect to mandate it where "other people have to pay"
especially taxpayers who DON'T BELIEVE in the same things!

(The equivalent of this phenomenon on the Republican side is
how many of them would still support wars if they or their children
had to go fight with the troops? how much of that war support depends
on "other people paying for it" or "other people fighting those wars."
And how much would this change if the SUPPORTERS had to
foot all the costs of war efforts THEMSELVES without relying on
those opposed to war?)