“Brian Stelter, Ilhan Omar and The Psychology of Content” on The Voice of a Nation at 6 PM ET on iHeart Radio. Sign up for our NEW notifications by clicking the bell icon in the bottom left corner. Tune into After Dark at 9 PM ET on America Out Loud Talk Radio.

October 26, 2021

October 26, 2021

Your Source for Free Speech,
Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Strike Three for the Supreme Court on ObamaCare

by | Aug 10, 2021 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The constitutional problems with ObamaCare are numerous and well documented. However, the Supreme Court seems bent on twisting the law and facts to keep this abuse of our rights in place. First, the court effectively rewrote the law to shoehorn it into the taxing power of Congress. In the most recent case, the court refused to even hear the argument from over a dozen states. This is strike three for the court.

Lets start with jurisdiction. Texas, joined by over a dozen other states and two individuals, brought suit against federal officials claiming that ObamaCare is no longer constitutional since its individual mandate has been reduced to $0. California, with 15 other states and the District of Columbia, intervened to defend the mandate. I will get into the constitutionality of ObamaCare shortly, but the one thing I want you to note is that the courts decision, in this case, came out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Since several states are parties to this case, the Supreme Court should have had original jurisdiction, not a lower court. We are, however, so ignorant of the Constitution, I wonder how many Americans even noticed.

A Tax That is Not a Tax

The suit revolves around the requirement of ObamaCare that individuals either maintain a government-defined minimum health insurance coverage or pay a fine. Writing the bill, Congress was very careful to refer to this penalty as a fine, not a tax. When this bill was signed into law, though, it was quickly challenged in court. In what I can only consider a twisting of the law and facts of the case for what I assume was to obtain the desired outcome, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, did not find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congresss power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. …

(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Acts other reforms. …

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance if such a construction is reasonable.

NFB v. Sables

The court found that Congress did not have the power to impose the fine either under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Contrary to both the language of the law and the words of the members of Congress, the court decided to rewrite the statute to declare that a fine is a tax. Why is this important?

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate.

NFB v. Sebelius

Congress had passed a law stating that before a court can hear a case about the collection of taxes, someone must pay the tax first. The court used this law as an excuse not to hear the case about the individual mandate as a tax since no one had paid it yet. This Anti-Injunction Act is a violation of your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, as a direct tax on the American people on something other than income, the ObamaCare tax” is also unconstitutional.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

The only exception to the apportionment of direct taxes is in the Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XVI

Since taxing someone for not doing something is not a legitimate reason for Congress to collect taxes according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, allowing the individual mandate to stand as a tax is a triple violation of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

So the individual mandate, not to mention ObamaCare as a whole, is a giant unconstitutional mess dropped on the American people. And since the court has been either too cowardly or too corrupted to point that out, were still dealing with its stink today.

Then along comes California v. Texas.

The court found the original plaintiffs, Texas et al., did not have the standing to challenge the individual mandate, meaning they were not in a position to sue. Why? Well, it all comes down to the court’s interpretation of injury.’

To have standing, a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendants allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

California v. Texas Syllabus

According to the court, neither the states nor the individuals who sued have yet to incur any actual injury.

The two individual plaintiffs claim a particularized individual harm in the form of past and future payments necessary to carry the minimum essential coverage that §5000A(a) requires. Assuming this pocketbook injury satisfies the injury element of Article III standing, it is not fairly traceable” to any allegedly unlawful conduct” of which the plaintiffs complain, Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751. Without a penalty for noncompliance, §5000A(a) is unenforceable.

California v. Texas Syllabus

According to the court, since the penalty for the mandate is zero, the individuals in the suit have not come to any actual injury traceable to any allegedly unlawful conduct.”

Texas and the other state plaintiffs have similarly failed to show that the pocketbook injuries they allege are traceable to the Governments allegedly unlawful conduct.

California v. Texas Syllabus

The states in this suit claimed both direct and indirect costs related to enforcing the individual mandate. According to the court, neither the states nor the individual has shown any injury that can be traced back to ObamaCares individual mandate (§5000A(a)).

The States, like the individual plaintiffs, have failed to show how that alleged harm is traceable to the Governments actual or possible action in enforcing §5000A(a)

California v. Texas Syllabus

This legal magic trick has been used before, as the dissent will point out.

Justice Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Todays decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.

In the trilogys third episode, the Court is presented with the daunting problem of a tax” that does not tax. Can the taxing power, which saved the day in the first episode, sustain such a curious creature? In 2017, Congress reduced the tax” imposed on Americans who failed to abide by the individual mandate to $0. With that move, the slender reed that supported the decision in NFIB was seemingly cut down, but once again, the Court has found a way to protect the ACA.

In this suit, as I will explain, Texas and the other state plaintiffs have standing, and now that the tax” imposed by the individual mandate is set at $0, the mandate cannot be sustained under the taxing power. As a result, it is clearly unconstitutional, and to the extent that the provisions of the ACA that burden the States are inextricably linked to the individual mandate, they too are unenforceable.

California v. Texas Dissent

Justice Alito then goes on to point out the injuries the states are encountering by enforcing ObamaCare, linking it directly to the law. For this reason, Justice Alito would hold that the States do have standing and goes on to consider the merits of the case itself.


What I found most interesting while reviewing this case is the twisted concept of standing that was used, both by the plaintiffs and the court. I know of no other legal situation where a person is in imminent threat of injury yet does not have the legal right to defend themselves against it. You may be limited in what you can do, but think of what the courts requirement of standing says: The government can do something illegal, they can threaten you, but until they actually injure you, you can do nothing. Thats like saying someone can come to your door and threaten you, but you cannot call the police until they actually hit you.

So this idea that you have to let the government cause you injury, not simply threaten to, in order to have your day in court seems dangerous. Just think of how many illegal laws Congress has passed, but as long as they dont actually apply one of those laws to someone who is willing and able to sue, they can continue to harass the rest of America.

But wait, theres more. The one thing that seems to have been forgotten in this case, and so many others, is the fact that the states, as parties to the Constitution, have a right to seek redress if they can show that their creation (the Federal government) violated their charter. Imagine you and some friends enter into a partnership agreement. In this agreement, you create a business and set the boundaries of its operation. According to the court, that business can violate those boundaries all it wants, as long as it does not injure the partners in a way the court recognizes. Does that sound crazy to anyone else?

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.


U.S. Constitution, Amendment X

As Ive already shown, in the case of NFB v. Sebelius, the court found that Congress had exceeded its authority to legislate, either under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses. Also, as a direct tax on failure to act, Congress violated both Article I, Section 2, and Section 8 of their charter, the Constitution of the United States. Together, that means that Congress has exercised powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. And since these powers had not been prohibited to the States by that same Constitution, Congress has violated the rights of the States by stealing their power. Yet, the court does not recognize this injury when it comes to standing. By depriving the States of the power to control their creation, the Supreme Court has further injured the states.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Declaration of Independence

By allowing the United States to violate its charter (the Constitution of the United States), the court has deprived the American people of the consent to the powers of government. That means the powers exercised by the federal government are not just.

Why do I tell people not to put their trust in courts? This is an excellent example. Here we have multiple clear violations of the Constitution, yet not only does the court not recognize these violations, but it also piles on further insult to the injury. The American people have forgotten that they created the United States through their states, which includes the Supreme Court. We have been taught to be servants of government, but as Lincoln said:

The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

Federal judges are not elected in the hope they would be less political. However, they do not serve lifetime appointments.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, 

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1

So what can we do about these repeated failures of the Supreme Court? First, as their rightful masters, its up to us to keep them in line. Thats why the sole power of impeachment has been given to the peoplesrepresentatives in the House. If these judges are going to repeatedly violate their oath to support the Constitution, then their bad behavior should be punished.

Second, since ObamaCare is a blatant violation of the Constitution, States should ignore it as the void legislation it is.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Marbury v. Madison Opinion

Only when We the People regain control of our states and our creation in Washington, D.C., do we have a chance of being free.

Paul Engel

Author and speaker Paul Engel has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. That experience helps Paul explain difficult concepts in a way most people can understand. As one manager described, “Paul can take the most complex idea and explain it in a way my grandmother can understand.” Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock (a Saturday morning cartoon) than in 12 years of school,” he says that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. Since 2014 I have been helping everyday Americans read and study the Constitution of their country and teaching the rising generation to be free. Using news and current events as a springboard, I explain the Constitution and encourage others to stand up and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves, their children, and the nation.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.

De Blasio Cancels Competence

De Blasio Cancels Competence

More and more application of the equity over competence principle means outcomes like these: No admission standards for music schools such as Julliard. No admission standards for medical schools like Beth Israel. No admission standards for engineering schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. No standards for pilot certification…

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, #7

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, #7

How could the Delta variant be more contagious than the original Sars Covid, since variant comes from it? I would like to know what Dr. McCullough thinks about the possible connection between vaccine side effects and inadvertent intravenous injection of the vaccine? I work at a government lab, and we are being forced to take it or be fired by Nov 15th….. Help!! Please!

When it Comes to the Acts of Congress, those Emperors Have No Clothes

When it Comes to the Acts of Congress, those Emperors Have No Clothes

It’s much like the people in the story of The Emperor’s Clothes; the American people are either afraid of, or ignorant of, the facts, and are therefore unwilling to point out the obvious. I haven’t even found any evidence that this Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was even challenged in court, much less among the states. This lie has been going around for so long most Americans have been gaslighted into believing it’s true…

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

As a crisis develops, Democrats will use the propaganda resources of the mass media to promote their victimization and blame “White Privilege” as the reason for the supposed inefficiencies and injustices that keep them always subservient to their welfare status. CRT is another attack on a functioning America. Democrats offer false hope to the underclass…

Repeated US Intelligence Failures Spell Disaster

Repeated US Intelligence Failures Spell Disaster

At the moment, a ‘woke’ American military is not even capable of protecting the US borders let alone confronting a determined enemy. The USA is a naked target at the moment, and it will be innocent civilians who will pay the ultimate price for the gross betrayal by all its leaders to protect them from evil, starting with Joe Biden, the Traitor in Chief…

Let’s Identify and Quash the Apostles of Slavery and Injustice for All

Let’s Identify and Quash the Apostles of Slavery and Injustice for All

They supplant the virtuous Pledge of Allegiance that demands “liberty and justice for all.” Shall we helplessly sit back and allow these missionaries of evil to have their way? Some say yes. Others aren’t so sure. But a growing number of people are deciding they’ve had enough. For many months now, the plain truth has been evident: America is under attack!

A Woke Military Threatens US Readiness

A Woke Military Threatens US Readiness

Under woke military leadership, the US has fallen so far behind China and Russia that our best experts have no idea how the Chinese could accomplish this nuclear missile flight and strike. Milley and Austin and the Marxist Democrats (both the puppets such as Biden and the puppet masters such as Soros organizations) already have blood on their hands from Afghanistan.  

True Parent Patriots Act Against Racist, Anti-America Agenda

True Parent Patriots Act Against Racist, Anti-America Agenda

Parents have responsibly refused to stand idly by as arrogant academic ideologues teach their kids to judge one another by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character; malign their country as systemically and irredeemably evil rather than celebrate America’s virtues; and witness their tax money wasted on failed schools, failed curricula, and failed outcomes…

Breaking the Grip of Medical Tyranny

Breaking the Grip of Medical Tyranny

Patients and family members should demand “shared decision making” and enforce a patient bill of rights that ensures all parties agree on the treatment course. America has been rocked by the court cases that families have brought to bare getting court orders to force doctors and hospitals to administer proper care…


Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations.

Help Support Our Mission


The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap