Stand and Oppose Obamacare

Intro to ‘Stand and Oppose Obamacare’

Intro by John R. Houk

9/19/13

Justin Smith writes an excellent essay on repealing or actually defunding Obamacare. I truly approve of Smith’s activist call for the States to use Article V of the U.S. Constitution to take the issue out of the hands of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress does seem to buckle more often than to withstand Obama’s Executive despotism. SCOTUS’s 5-4 decision making Obamacare Constitutional if the funding is declared a tax rather than using the Commerce Clause to ram the beginnings of Socialistic healthcare down the throats of Americans.

Chief Justice Roberts tried to make a compromise by ruling that reference to the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional; however compelling people to pay for Obamacare insurance is valid as a tax:

However, according to the majority decision by John Roberts, the Supreme Court's conservative chief justice, the mandate cannot be justified on commerce-clause grounds. Indeed, Mr. Roberts wholly affirms the argument that the commerce clause cannot regulate economic inactivity. From the syllabus of the decision:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to “regulate Commerce.” (John Roberts's art of war; By W.W.; The Economist; 6/28/12 21:01)

So mysteriously SCOTUS transferred Individual Mandated funding from regulating Commerce to Taxation.

Commerce Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a … (Bold Emphasis Mine)

So here is the appearance the Dem controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS colluded to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. By a two to one act of despotism the Constitution became irrelevant. However there is still a remedy in the Constitution to overcome two-branch despotism. That remedy is 2/3 of the fifty several states unite to have a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments that must a 3/4 several state ratification to overcome the political despotism of the Dem Party controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS subverting the Constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  (Bold Emphasis Mine - The Constitution of the United States: Article V; National Archives – Federal Register)

The Constitution has never been amended by the initiation of “the several states”. An Amendment Constitutional Convention might be the last legal vestige to overcome political intransience of a polarized Executive Branch and Congress. AND a divided SCOTUS could not overrule any Amendment designed by a Constitutional Convention convened by “the several states”.

Justin Smith’s essay should inspire you to participate in an activism on the grassroots level to overcome Federal despotism.

JRH 9/19/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************************

Stand and Oppose Obamacare

By Justin O. Smith

September 19, 2013 11:58 am

Justin Smith FB Notes

In 2010, the Democratic controlled House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 219 to 212, even though there had not been any great advocacy from the public on this issue. To the contrary, most Americans saw only a need in some health care sectors  for slight reforms, and most Americans know now, just as they did then, that this misnamed legislation ("affordable") will make matters worse for all America, rather than better; the Affordable Care Act is recognized by the majority of Americans as an egalitarian system based on Marxist principles, redistribution of the wealth, and the scarcity that accompanies such a system, as opposed to conservative free-market capitalist principles, tried and true, that have always yielded a great benefit to all; the PPACA is the worse piece of unConstitutional legislation in U.S. history, and Democrats and Republicans alike must recognize the negative impact of implementing the PPACA, and they must immediately defund it this month, as they also set in motion the repeal of the PPACA!

The PPACA/Obamacare has begun underfunded, and the system is ripe for corruption, bribery and abuses that will cost all Americans a great deal more than they are currently paying for health care. Whether one supports Obamacare or not, our tax-dollars, as prescribed by the PPACA, are now funding advertisements that excitedly explain just how wonderful Obamacare will be; those same collective tax-dollars will fund abortions and violate the conscience, religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who stand in opposition to abortion. And eventually, Obamacare's poorly organized funding and implementation will force us all into a single-payer system, which will become the principle instrument of social control of the Progressive Democrats or any other unethical and immoral future administrations.

The flaws in Obamacare will become more apparent, and Americans will find themselves standing in long health care queues and provided medical services of dubious quality, because the more proficient medical professionals are already leaving medicine or planning to serve outside of Obamacare, until this is made illegal. Americans will necessarily need to join private medical groups comprised of citizens, who pool their resources in order to ensure the care of their members, which also leaves their freedom of choices and their privacy rights in place, because Obamacare has already shown itself to be a pipe-dream that will significantly increase the cost of a rationed health care system, kill jobs and the economy and still leave 30 million Americans un-insured!

"There are very few issues that are as personal and as tangible as health care, and implementation of the law over the next year is going to reveal a lot of kinks, a lot of red-tape, a lot of taxes, a lot of price increases and a lot of people forced into health care that they didn't anticipate," Brad Dayspring (Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee) recently stated.

Due to all the aforementioned, Obamacare is going to be an issue of critical importance in both the 2014 and 2016 elections, and it is beyond damned disgusting to watch Progressive "Republicans in name only", such as Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lamar Alexander and Speaker John Boehner, pretend that they cannot stop Obamacare. Corker, in his slow drawl, laments, "Well, it's the law now," as if Congress has never before rescinded a U.S federal law. Boehner, feckless and pretentious, presides over one vote after another to repeal Obamacare, when he has known all along that the House can remove the government mechanisms that implement Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution and essentially kill Obamacare. And, while Alexander says he has voted 23 times to repeal Obamacare, he voted extra funds for Obamacare during a shortfall of funds for the state exchanges.

These Progressive RINOs are no more anxious for the repeal of Obamacare than the Progressive Democrats, due to the power and wealth they look to gain in association with this Obamacare behemoth; these people are also representative of the status quo Republicans, who simply content themselves to work within the framework of any defeat the Progressive Democrats hand them, as they genuflect, lift their petticoats and await whatever favor Obama grants them!

The stage was set for this when the Progressive majority rammed Obamacare into law, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the bidding of the most extreme and radical U.S. President in history and found Obamacare "constitutional" in a fit of judicial activism aimed against our U.S. Constitution and against the will of the people. Americans witnessed firsthand tyranny, as described by James Madison in 'Federalist Paper #47':

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Just imagine if past leaders had adopted the attitude of today's Progressives concerning the Dredd Scott v. Sanford case (1857), and they never fought to abolish slavery, or they never passed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. One must take a strong stand in opposition to any bad law of the magnitude of the Dredd Scott Decision or Obamacare, either one.

It is our responsibility and duty to defend the U.S. Constitution and our individual liberty in order that our children will live more free than now and, at the very least, as free as America's Founders. This demands that we fight to our last dying breath to defund and repeal Obamacare. Those of you, so enamored with "Obama bucks", Obamacare's "free health care" give-away programs and "hope and change," that you willingly give up your freedom to the State in exchange for the promise of "equality for all" in poverty, have wrapped yourselves in the cold embrace of the Statists' chains. As for the remainder ... the True American Patriots... demand that Congress remove Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution before September 30, regardless of the imagined or real pitfalls that they envision; it's better to lose a battle standing on one's feet as a Free Man than to lose it on one's knees...a coward!

If Congress fails America in this one simple task due to any fear that guides it, everyone should organize, in some form or fashion, and contact all their state legislators in every single state, blue and red alike, to start the process of involving each of their respective states in a States' Convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, that repeal Obamacare and halt several other aspects of government overreach in the manner described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States...". This process trumps the President, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court!

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

© Justin O. Smith

Intro and Edited by John R. Houk

Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional

I am sure I’ll be posting more on the Supreme Court’s astounding decision to uphold the individual mandates of Obamacare later. Until then the best Conservative viewpoint I have found in the early hours of the decision is on The Blaze.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Chief Justice Roberts usually considered an Original Intent Constitutional Justice voted with the Leftist Justices to uphold the 5-4 decision!

JRH 6/28/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

********************************

Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional

By Becket Adams

June 28, 2012 at 10:16am

The Blaze

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, including the controversial “individual mandate,” is constitutional by a 5-4 majority.

“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,” SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.

However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?

“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power.  But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.

Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in upholding the mandate.

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” Roberts writes in his opinion (page six).

“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices [emphasis added],” he adds.

Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.

“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:

1)      Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional

2)      Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect

3)      If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?

4)      Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional

Of the four points discussed, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, as a tax, the individual mandate is constitutional. Under the Commerce Clause, it doesn’t work, but as a tax, it’s legitimate.

Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.

It doesn’t seem that way now.

Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.

The Blaze VIDEO OF SCOTUS ANNOUNCEMENT

 

______________________________

All information © 2012 TheBlaze LLC

Obama Openly Moving to Dark Side?

John R. Houk

© April 4, 2012

President Barack Hussein Obama has shown his true colors when he informed the Supreme Court they did not have the authority to overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional. The Left and this President in particular has been shredding the Constitution for nearly a half-a-century. We Conservatives have cried foul for about the same time and labeled the Court system that justifies the Leftist agenda as judicial activism. We Conservatives have put up with Leftist judicial activism realizing that the courts have been politicized by Democratic Party Presidents and Democratic Party majority rule in the Senate.

It has became clear that the only way to counter Leftist judicial activist constitutional shredding is for GOP Presidents to balance America’s courts with Conservative Original Intent Judges. Thanks to President Reagan and President Bush the Supreme Court has a relatively 5 majority Conservative Original Intent Justices versus to 4 Leftist Living Constitution Justices.

Now that judicial activism might counter a Leftist agenda on a huge scale for the first time in about 50 years BHO is crying foul trying to paint the Supreme Court as a bunch of activist Justices. The reality is that SCOTUS has that thin one vote lead with one of those Justices siding with the Conservative side sometimes and with the Leftist side sometimes.

We Americans have to ask ourselves: What will President Barack Hussein Obama do if Obamacare is struck down by a 5-4 vote? The President certainly sounded like he was providing a veiled threat, right?

FOX Video: Firestorm over Obama's comments about Supreme Court

Now since the original Obama threat, the President has backtracked somewhat by clarifying his anti-SCOTUS remarks. BHO says he will of course abide with whatever SCOTUS rules. YET BHO claims Obamacare is a commerce issue and as such believes SCOTUS has never overruled the Federal Government when the Executive and Legislative Branches have legislated laws according to the Commerce Clause.

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:

(Clause 1) The Congress shall have power ,,,

(Clause 3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

This FindLaw article on the Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court demonstrates that Obama is outright lying in public because SCOTUS indeed has struck down Federal Laws that were wrongly based on the Commerce Clause. And I am not talking about ancient judicial decisions but as short a relative time as 1995. Now I am saying “outright lying” because as a lawyer Obama was trained on Constitutional Law. This means he was lying in public to convince voters that Obamacare is legislation on the high road that should  be untouchable.

Further Obama lied that Obamacare was passed with broad Congressional support. Here Obama must be hoping Americans must have a short memory that there were backdoor sweet deals for various Senators’ States to get a vote to pass Obamacare. THAT IS NOT BROAD CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT!

The three Judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court has issued an order to:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. (CBS via Red State 4/4/12)

I suspect Obama will blink first in a turf war with the Judicial Branch, but if not – What would a Socialist (bordering really close on Marxism) do to fight the Judicial Branch?

VIDEO: Jenna Lee Interviewing about SCOTUS-Obama dispute

JRH 4/4/12

***************************

Obama vs. the Supreme Court, round 2

Pushback and walk-backs.

By John Hayward

04/04/2012

Human Events

President Obama’s reckless and foolish attack on the Supreme Court drew an immediate response from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, as reported by Fox News:

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.

A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.

The magnitude of what is transpiring here cannot be overstated.  The President of the United States launched a wild attack on the very structure of our government, taking a verbal redaction marker to the parts of the Constitution that stand in his way.  A federal court is now, appropriately, treating him like a spoiled and dangerous child.  They might as well have demanded Obama write “I WILL NOT CHALLENGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SUPREME COURT” a hundred times on a blackboard.

Obama has already begun to walk back his comments.  Here’s a quick reminder of his exact words, to help you peer through the billowing clouds of spin pouring from the Administration:

I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress.
 
I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

As I said, we are confident this will be over -- this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency.

(Emphasis added to the parts that the Obama 2012 campaign needs you to forget, pronto.)  Obama was challenged on these statements at the Associated Press luncheon on Tuesday, by Associated Press chairman Dean Singleton.  Here is the exchange, courtesy of a transcript from the Washington Examiner.  The President’s answer rambles on for a long time, so we’ll focus on the important part.

MR. SINGLETON:  Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress.  But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence.  If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner.  Right?  So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.  And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

That’s not what he said originally, nor did he imply anything of the sort.  He very clearly said that he thinks “overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” (a risible description of ObamaCare, which barely squeaked through Congress, its passage greased by back-room deals) would be an “unprecedented and extraordinary” step.

Obama originally went on to describe this “unprecedented” exercise of Supreme Court power as “judicial activism,” which is bad because it would be “a good example” of “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”  Nowhere did he mention economic ramifications – he was quite clear about his ugly insinuation that the Constitutional limits on government should be over-ridden by The Will Of the People, and Barack Hussein Obama is the avatar of that will, no matter what those silly polls showing huge majorities opposed to ObamaCare might say.

In any event, this “economic issue” restraint on the Supreme Court is arrant nonsense, unworthy of a first-year student, never mind an alleged professor of Constitutional law.  You will search in vain for any such restriction in the Constitution.  It’s also logically absurd.  Obama is saying the Court has no power to strike down really huge laws as unconstitutional.  If they’re small, and don’t have profound economic ramifications, then maybe that would be okay, but ObamaCare is such a mighty exercise of political power by two branches of government that the third branch can only gape in silent wonder at its audacity.

The President is graciously willing to concede that the Supreme Court just might have the legal authority to rule on the constitutionality of Really Big Laws – a concession that is absolutely nowhere to be found in his original, controversial remarks – but it would be ethically improper for them to ignore the “restraint” his will to power has conjured for them.

Obama went on to reinforce these bizarre points at great length, emphasizing “the human element” of his power grab by droning on about the “letters he gets every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it’s not fully implemented.”  Presumably the letters from the huge majority who demand ObamaCare’s repeal never make it to his desk… or, more to the point, such letters would not count even if he read them, because the needs of the State’s new dependents take absolute priority over the economic liberty or legal concerns of our dwindling provider class.

Asserting the power of such anecdotes only reinforces the offensive, anti-Constitutional absurdity of Obama’s philosophy.  The laws binding our government were not meant to be shredded because a few people really, really, really want them to go away.  They don’t dissolve under the intensity of our ruling elite’s taxpayer-funded compassion.  ObamaCare is an utter disaster, but even if it was functioning the way the President and his Party assured us it would, that doesn’t automatically make it legal.

The entire point of constitutionally restrained government is to thwart the ambitions of the ruling class.  Of course they’ll always be able to come up with sweet-sounding justifications for their ambitions, or line up vocal minorities who passionately support them!  Every tyrant in history has spoken of the “greater good” and “enemies of The People.”  Few words come more easily to their lips.

Politicians are supposed to respect these limitations on their power in a constitutional republic, not seek to undermine or destroy them at every turn.  Imagine the reaction of our Founding Fathers if they were told an American president and his allies would force a blatantly unconstitutional law through Congress in a midnight rush, then defend it by saying it’s just too darn huge to undo, even if it’s both a failure and illegal.  It was a dereliction of duty for the Democrats to put the Supreme Court in this position, and now they dare to use political muscle to influence its decisions?

The entire point behind making the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment was to insulate the Justices from any Barack Obamas who might happen along, thundering about their righteous imperatives, desperate supporters, historic achievements, and morally irresistible justifications for power.  There will always be lots of reasons for making the government larger, advanced with breathless passion by those in love with its potential.  That’s why we have a small, powerful, brilliantly written set of reasons for saying “no.”

_______________________________

Obama Openly Moving to Dark Side?

John R. Houk

© April 4, 2012

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

_______________________________

Obama vs. the Supreme Court, round 2

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. He is a regular guest on the Rusty Humphries radio show. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Copyright 2012 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Can the Govt. Stop your Veggie Garden?

John R. Houk

© December 27, 2010

Below is some information sent to me by my friend Vicki. I am utilizing the email version sent to me. The story is entitled, “Feds Order Farmer to Destroy His Own Wheat Crop”. The link is to a NaturalNews.com article by Mike Adams.

The Adams article is about the Federal government preventing a farmer from growing his crops. This is actually nothing new. The Federal government often pays farmers or farming corporations to not grow a crop to control the supply and demand and thus the price.

The relatively new thing the Federal Government is doing now is utilizing an alternative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to prevent farmers and/or those folks operating the proverbial backyard garden to prevent people from growing a personal supply for themselves or perhaps the garage sail version of personal farming – the Farmer’s Market. The government is citing the Commerce Clause which was intended to prevent Inter-State tariffs within America. The Commerce Clause has been used in creating the Farm Subsidy to control agricultural markets which is also  stretch of the Constitution. The Federal government is using the same reasoning to prevent personal growth farms from taking of the needs of a single household.

Read the story from NaturalNews.com.

JRH 12/27/10