There is a reality to contracts. They define the rights of the parties. It is no secret that the parties to a contract have rights in that contract. This has been the basis of labor unions and their labor contracts, unions who solely answer to the National Government. This is to assure that the States do not use powers they don't have, prohibited to them by the Constitution, per Article I, Section 10, “No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,....” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
James Madison explains in Federalist 44 why this is so and you'll find he well describes a situation we are in today:
“Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society [This last part is the meaning of “regulation”].” -- Emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_44.html
The significance of this is that Obamacare requires the States to violate the Constitution, to change their laws to accommodate a Federal Program in a manner that the approximately 5,000,000 people with Cancellation Notices demonstrate has caused them to be alienated of their rights in existing contracts.
The President, of course, offers up his so-called “fix” which is merely not enforcing the law or regulation that caused these cancellations, which is to say he will not Honor his Oath of Office. But more importantly, in being able to decide what it will or will not enforce of the law, the Federal Government asking the States to violate the Constitution is the National Government knowingly and purposefully causing a violation of the Constitution to achieve a solely political end, irrespective of the cost to the people and the States themselves.
I submit that those with canceled policies, irrespective of any “fix” after the fact, have been injured, that their Healthcare Right (a right by contract long before Obamacare ever existed) has already been violated, and that, due to the President and those implementing Obamacare knowing this would be the result, these Americans who are losing their health insurance are due, at minimum, financial recompense for the violation of their right of contract in no less way than a union member would be due money for injury to their property – their rights under a union contract -- if the National Government asked the States to change their laws so as to alienate the labor contract rights of union members.
“Fundamental Transformation” is the obvious (and I contend intended) result of Obamacare when you review what James Madison wrote and compare it to the fact that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution deals specifically with “interstate commerce,” a certain distinction to the health insurance companies as they must deal with people in their respective state, unable to sell insurance across State lines – which places health insurance squarely as an activity of intrastate commerce and, therefore, even the National Government in Washington, D.C. has no right to affect an individual's Right of Contract, directly or indirectly.
Thus, if you know someone whose health insurance has been canceled, I urge you to have them take a look at what I've written here, which includes a link to the claim form they'll need to make a claim on the National Government for the injury to their quiet and peaceful possession of their Right of Contract, http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/SF95.pdf. This link will likely be changed or otherwise undone once people start using it, especially some 5 million of them. And after downloading, I further urge you to review the document, consider how you'd fill it out, and then contact a lawyer.
This form is necessary because it invokes the administrative process, laws such as The Administrative Procedure Act and the rules that govern bureaucracies and how they must treat you. And should they fail to follow these procedures, well, generally that's tantamount to “waiver of sovereign immunity,” which is also known as “permission to sue.” As I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal advice, I ask you to appreciate this as a mere researcher sharing a form that derives from a law enacted by Congress to assure no one is without a remedy when government is wrong. It would appear it is time things like this are of a more general knowledge, as that also helps people appreciate American Government that it is built around the principle of always having a remedy for wrongs because the American People aren't subjects of their government as is the case in every other nation around the World. A recent court case that you may want to bring to the attention of your lawyer, that I found noteworthy after reading it, is Sackett v. EPA, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf.
Now if that's a bit rough to read, here's a Businessweek article (that is a bit left leaning) written before the ruling that may help appreciate how the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Sacketts strengthened private property rights, and diminished the overzealous sense of the EPA that it has final say (and suggesting they have unlimited powers), http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/mike-and-chantell-sackett-vs-the-epa-08112011.html.
And here is a blog post celebrating the judgment in favor of the Sacketts, http://www.openmarket.org/2012/03/21/
My job since I started writing these articles is to help people come to grips with their responsibility as Americans, as “Constituents,” those who “Constituted” America and American Government, to help appreciate we're not denizens or subjects whose lives are reliant on those we elect. I hope that a number of lawyers consider what I've put forth here and will make a serious effort to represent people in lawsuits against the United States Government for causing scores of Americans to be alienated from their Healthcare Rights, those rights incident to their Health Insurance Contract that is now prematurely canceled because of Obamacare and for no other reason.
Thank you for reading and sharing this article with others,
Toddy Littman
