Question for Obama and supporters of Obamacare



If 26 States [a majority of the States] have officially declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and have rejected it, which they have, see: Six more states have joined Florida’s lawsuit against President Obama’s landmark healthcare law, arguing the controversial measure is unconstitutional., and the overwhelming number of Americans reject Obamacare as written, which is also the case, see 75% Want Health Care Law Changed, and our Constitution requires the approval of “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof ” prior to the exercise of any new power by Congress, how can one contend the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 is constitutional when the American people have never debated and then granted a power to Congress to *** regulate the American People’s health care needs and choices*** as required under Article Five of our Constitution?

By the above stated facts, Obama‘s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” cannot at this time obtain the consent of the governed (the required number of States) for it to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Where have I gone wrong especially when our Constitution declares:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The 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.


***Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process — tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE majority vote in Congress! ***


Seems so simple, hard to believe so many who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution consider this simple opinion a “Radical Right Wing Extremist” opinion.


Are you talking about the ones that laughed at having to read it even after the “offensive” parts were removed? Maybe the ones that have said on tape it doesn’t matter to them? Could it be the ones that think the preamble is a working part of it that has power to supersede the actual articles?


Exactly, I guess all those “sworn oaths” were taken with their fingers crossed behind their backs.