Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



8 Ways to Be Exempt From the Individual Mandate Under Obamacare

The official start of enrollment under Obamacare kicked off roughly seven weeks ago under less than ideal circumstances, and early enrollment figures, especially from the federally run website,, have been nothing short of dismal.

Despite the opposition's cries for repeal and a relatively poor start -- largely blamed on a mixture of poorly constructed IT architecture and the government not allotting enough time to test the system -- the keystone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as the individual mandate, has not been delayed and is still expected to go into effect on Jan. 1.

As a refresher, the individual mandate is the actionable part of the PPACA that requires individuals to purchase health insurance of face a penalty in 2014 of the greater of $95 or 1% of their annual income. This penalty increases in size through 2016, when it equates to the greater of $695 or 2.5% of annual income should an individual choose to go without insurance. Each year after 2016, it will increase by the inflation rate.

As you might imagine, a good chunk of people need to purchase health insurance, renew their existing plan, or choose to go without. There are, however, a select number of groups -- eight to be exact -- that are exempt from the individual mandate, and therefore its penalties. Let's take a closer look at which groups are currently exempt under the PPACA's laws.

1. Select religious groups
The first exemption relates to those religious sects whose beliefs forbid them from obtaining health insurance, such as the Amish. For those of you thinking of starting your own religious sect to remain exempt from the individual mandate, you may want to have a back-up plan; there are pretty cut-and-dried rules as to what qualifies. According to the IRS, an individual would need to prove membership in a qualified exempt religious sect and have waived all Social Security benefits and rights. Chances are better than not that you aren't exempt from Social Security. Furthermore, according to the IRS, the sect or division must have "been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950." 

2. American Indians
One group more likely to see exemptions from the PPACA are members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The U.S. Department of Indian Affairs maintains a federal registry of all qualifying tribes, which equates to more than five full pages of exemptions. You can check to see if your tribe qualifies by going here (link opens PDF file). Keep in mind that this doesn't mean American Indians are all uninsured, because that isn't the case. It just means that Indian Health Service and tribal-run health facilities take care of their health needs on tribal land. Should American Indians choose to live away from their tribal land, they are free to obtain health insurance on their state- or federally run health exchange under Obamacare.

3. Citizens who do not need to file a tax return
In addition to qualifying religious sects and American Indians, those who fall below the federal household income threshold and don't need to file federal income taxes are exempt from the individual mandate. Simply put, the PPACA is all about bringing affordable health insurance to Americans. If someone's annual income is below the poverty level, they wouldn't be able to afford health insurance. Therefore, they aren't going to be penalized if for some reason they choose not to maintain health insurance.

4. Those who are incarcerated
No, this is not a calling card for you to go commit a crime to get out of Obamacare! But the truth is that people who are incarcerated in jail, prison, or other penal institutions are exempt from the individual mandate. Once you're free, though, you'll be expected to purchase health insurance unless you meet one of these other seven exemptions.

5. Citizens who would be required to spend more than 8% of their income on health insurance premiums
If you do make more than the income threshold that requires you to file income taxes, you're not out of luck just yet. If you as an individual plan holder or member of a company-sponsored plan pay more than 8% of your annual salary out of pocket in premium costs based on the lowest-cost plan available (i.e. bronze), then you are exempt from the individual mandate under the PPACA's laws. Keep in mind this is a fluid figure that could change on a year-to-year basis. Also, the employer mandate should crack down on incidences of this happening when it goes into full effect on Jan. 1, 2015. When fully enforced, it will penalize businesses with 50 or more full-time employees that aren't offering health insurance to employees and that aren't subsidizing health insurance premiums in cases where premiums hit a certain threshold of an employees' annual salary.

6. Those who can claim a hardship
It seems that every law has to have its gray area, and if there's an exemption that can sometimes be difficult to pinpoint, it's those persons claiming a hardship. The concern here is that a hardship doesn't meet one definition, but has roughly one dozen noted exemptions according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines. Hardships listed include being evicted within the past six months, being homeless, recently experiencing the death of a close family member, filing bankruptcy within the past six months, or being found ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn't expand its Medicaid program. These are just a handful of the hardships which may grant you an exemption. You can read the full list at the CMS' marketplace exemption website (link opens PDF file). 

7. Those who are not lawfully present in the U.S.
Put plainly, those persons who are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals (i.e. without lawful presence) are exempted from the individual mandate. That might seem like a double-standard to let non-citizens off the hook, but there's no way to enforce a penalty on someone that most likely isn't even paying taxes or filing them in the U.S. in the first place!

8. Those citizens who go uninsured for a period of less than three months per calendar year
Go ahead and throw an asterisk next to this one, because it does assume that you'll be purchasing health insurance for nine of the 12 months out of the calendar year. However, the PPACA allows you to go without coverage for a period of up to three months per year without being penalized. This is to account for things like changing jobs or perhaps a temporary hardship like moving.

Still have more Obamacare questions? We have the answers!
Obamacare may seem complex, but it doesn't have to be. In only minutes, you can learn the critical facts you need to know in a special free report called Everything You Need to Know About Obamacare. But don't hesitate; because it's not often that we release a FREE guide containing this much information and money-making advice. Please click here to access your free copy.

Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2013, at 3:02 PM, glennlamb wrote:

    #9 Vote for a president that stands for freedom and personal liberty's.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2013, at 3:25 PM, william2013 wrote:

    Is that 8% before tax or after tax???

    since we live on take home pay and that is were the money is going to come from to buy worthless health insurance.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2013, at 3:28 PM, James902 wrote:

    People who claim the V.A. as their medical provider are also exempt from PPACA.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2013, at 4:47 PM, TMFUltraLong wrote:


    Based on page 28 and 29 which is where you'll locate this exemption in the CMS document I'll paste below it reads as if it's after-tax dollars. Most of these laws read in the context of "taxable income."


  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2013, at 6:43 PM, doco177 wrote:

    Fathom The Hypocrisy Of A Government That Requires Every Citizen To Prove They Are Insured....But Not Everyone Must Prove They Are A Citizen.

    And Now, Any Of Those Who Refuse, Or Are Unable To Prove They Are Citizens Will Receive FREE Insurance Paid For By Those Who Are Forced To Buy Insurance Because They Are Citizens.

    Google "Obamacare Flowchart" at Intellectual Takeout to see a visualization of the convoluted, corrupt mess this thing really is

    Congress,Muslims, Amish, Native Americans and several other groups are exempt from mandate and penalties under ACA that the rest of us have to pay.

    The govt becoming more involved in health care is the reason the costs have increased. So Govt creates a crisis, then provides a solution that comes at the expense of liberty and freedom, costs trillions, and by most accounts won't solve the problem but in fact make it far worse.Corruption, incompetence, disregard of the Constitution, and lying are integral to the way that this country is being run.

    Three years ago, Obama, Democrats, and his media lied to us about cutting the cost of health care, being able to keep our insurance, and not taxing the middle class. Today, those lies and what ACA is and will do to the working and middle class are the biggest untold story in America.

    REFUSE and Repeal ACA...If only a mere 20% of the over 300 million population of the USA boycott ACA the government would be overwhelmed to even think they could penalize or mandate every citizen that refused to participate in the most corrupt and unlawful ways which it was passed that circumvented the constitution of the United States

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2013, at 4:57 PM, rhoop wrote:

    It's ironic that a financial website would list ways to be exempt from Owebamacare!

    But the sheep that still believe won't get it!

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2013, at 5:26 PM, uncoveror wrote:

    This is nothing but corporate welfare for the insurance industry.

    Everyone who has a job is already paying for medicare, but only seniors benefit from that at all. It is time that society stopped robbing and looting the young.

  • Report this Comment On March 25, 2014, at 8:41 PM, sparkie wrote:



    Some years ago when the corporation (The Fed) bailed out our failed government they sold it to us as salvation. Now we see that we have paid for that rescue with our freedom. We however, have awakened to the truth. We have become slaves to the corporate congress. Today all that changes. Let the word go forth from this time and place to all friend and foe alike that we have passed the torch to a new generation unwilling to permit the undoing of human rights and dignities and let every corporation know whether it wishes us well or evil that we shall pay any price in order to ensure survival and success of liberty.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united states of America.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these united states of America. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. (Today that king is Dictator Barack Obma)

    The time is now – once again!

    The president took an Oath to support and defend the Constitution for The United States of America. Breaking that oath by the introduction of Obamacare/Affordable Health Care Act is an act of Treason.

    The Presidential Oath of Office

    The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Treason: A breach of allegiance to one’s own government, usually committed through levying war against such government or giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to over through the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition

    Forcing any citizen of The United States of America to purchase government mandated insurance and there-by giving up his or her private information is extortion. Such as Ok you taxpayers, enroll or pay the IRS’s fine!

    Extort: To compel or coerce, as a confession or information by any means serving to overcome one’s power of resistance, thus making the confession or admission involuntary. To gain by wrongful methods; to obtain in an unvoluntary manner, as to compel payments by means of threats of injury, property, reputation. To exact something wrongfully by threats of putting in fear. The naturel meaning of the word “extort” is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by compulsion, by actual force, or by the force of motives applied to the will, and more overpowering and irresistible than physical force. See also Extortion. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition

    Obama could not get his way when he proposed bills and or amendments that went against the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution for the United States of America. So what did the tyrant do? He snuck it into Obamacare/Affordable Health Care Act.

    The Gun Control in ObamaCare

    Sections 1501 and 1502 of HR 3590 -- which contain the so-called “individual mandate” -- require Americans to buy government-approved insurance and give the government a carte blanche to require that these policies contain requirements like Barack Obama’s oft-stated goal of computerizing medical records in a national database. (Indeed, Fox News reported on March 26, 2010, that under the new federal health care law, our medical records will soon go online to be available to all doctors.)

    This would make it impossible for Americans to keep private, medical information out of the government-controlled medical database that was created under Sec. 13001 of the stimulus bill. Once a person’s medical information has been put into the database, then the ATF and the FBI will be able to use it to deny law-abiding Americans their right to purchase firearms -- just like the thousands of military veterans who have been denied their right to purchase firearms.

    The problem with the veterans began in 1999, when under the direction of the Clinton administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs was obliged to share certain mental health records with the FBI for the purpose of adding names to the national instant check system (NICS). People whose names are added to NICS, of course, are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms.

    The health records in question had to do with persons the VA had deemed "mental defectives." Since 1968, persons so adjudicated have been prohibited from possessing firearms. For decades, the common understating of "mental defective" applied to people found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity. In 1999, however, the Clinton Justice Department unilaterally decided to greatly expand the definition to include the VA's very broad use of the term.

    Without notifying the people affected by the decision, the VA turned over the names of 90,000 veterans who "because of injury or disease lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs." Under the guise of “mental defectiveness,” therefore, many veterans who served their country honorably have lost their Second Amendment rights for life because a doctor or a bureaucrat in the VA appointed someone to look over their finances.

    Thanks to routine data dumps, the number of veterans who have lost their gun rights due to common maladies like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has increased to an estimated 150,000. PTSD, incidentally, affects as many as one third of all combat troops.

    These veterans were not convicted of a crime, were not found to be a danger to anyone, and they were not afforded any meaningful due process of law. They were added to NICS simply on the basis of the opinion of a government psychiatrist.

    To make matters worse, what began under the Clinton administration as a blatant illegitimate abuse of power was codified by a law, the so-called Veterans Disarmament Act of 2008, signed by President George W. Bush.

    If such a travesty of justice was made possible through the VA's national health care system, there is every reason to believe that it will also occur under Obama’s proposed health care legislation.

    Now, we fast forward to the present, where our medical records will go online soon. Is there any reason to believe that this information won’t also be available to the ATF and the FBI?

    We remember how after Joe the Plumber took on then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama, Joe’s tax records were “mysteriously” discovered and released to the public in an effort to discredit him.

    Clearly, once one arm of the federal government has our medical records, other arms will gain access, in the same way that the FBI got the original veterans’ names (90,000 of them) in 1999.

    What about the Second Amendment protections in the bill?

    Question: How does the above square with SEC. 2716 (2) and (3) of the bill? This section says:

    (2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; (B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or (C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

    (3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.— None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

    This language appears on the face to prohibit the use of any data collection with regard to use firearms. Does this section provide adequate protection for gun owners, and specifically for veterans?

    Answer: This language (section 2716) prohibits the use of the federal database for storing information about who has a gun (based on questions asked by a physician with respect to gun ownership).

    It does not prohibit the use of the database to determine who has a psychological “disorder” like ADHD or PTSD. And it does not prohibit the ATF from trolling the database for persons with ADHD and PTSD (independent of any issue of gun ownership) -- and sending their names to the FBI’s database of prohibited persons because they are “mental defectives” (18 U.S.C. 922 (g)). HIPAA would not prohibit this “law enforcement function,” and ObamaCare may significantly broaden the list of people whose determination is an “official” determination similar to the VA psychiatrists who have disarmed 150,000 veterans.

    To say that the health care database would never be used this way is to ignore history. Who ever thought in 1993 -- when the Brady Law was passed -- that the federal government would soon begin denying military veterans their right to own a gun … not for any crimes committed, but because of a psychiatrist’s determination that such veterans suffered from PTSD?

    What’s next an implanted RFID chip for everyone who is forced to accept the forced offerings of the corrupt government? Read what the Bible says in the book of Revelation 13:16-18.

    US Supreme Court: ‘law’ repugnant to the Constitution is void

    ObamaCare is Dead on Arrival

    Based upon the United States Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and now, established case law, Obamacare is dead on arrival in 2013.

    Does the Constitution mean what it says?

    The solution is simple. It relies on irrefutable facts and law presented below. It behooves every American to demand the Supreme Court an answer to these four Constitutional challenges:

    Obamacare breaks the Origination Clause

    The United States Constitution Article 1, Section 7 is unambiguous “positive law”, – the “Origination Clause”:

    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives: but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Both sides of the Obamacare controversy requested Judge Roger Vinson (U.S. District Court for Northern Florida) to address the legislative history of the Act. The Court found that the bill originated in the U.S. Senate. See Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. F. Supp.2d- , 2011 WL285683 (N.D. Fla.2011) which documents that the House of Representatives were not amending a Senate Bill, but instead found the “Act” to have originated in the Senate. That distinctly violates Article 1, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution rendering the “Act” “null and void.”

    Case law will now sink Obamacare

    Amazingly not a single (or should I say cowardly) State Attorney General (26- in- all) argued these irrefutable fact, after being presented with them, which makes one wonder. Only one Petition challenged “H.R.3590” “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” usurpation of the Constitution. That case was Purpura v. Sibelius, in the New Jersey District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court (Case No. 11- 7275). We brought that challenge only to see it go unanswered. Therefore the issue is still unsettled and ripe for review. And thanks to Hobby Lobby we may finely have an opportunity to argue the facts and law.

    Supreme Court Precedent

    The Supreme Court held that H.R. 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” did indeed have taxes throughout. So said Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority decision. Therefore, we have new case law. And this precedent will defeat Obamacare.

    Inarguably all three levels of the Federal Court system violated their fiduciary duty by failing to address the Constitutional argument that came before each level of the Federal System. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled the “Act” contained “Taxes.” That makes the “Act” constitutionally invalid based upon the “Origination Clause.” The “Act” irrefutably originated in the U.S. Senate as the Hon. Judge Roger Vinson found and stated above.

    The first individual or corporation to be ordered to pay a Tax has a legal Constitutional right to challenge that Tax in Federal Court as unconstitutional. On that point, every American regardless of political persuasion should give a resounding cheer to the Hobby Lobby corporation. Its owners are standing firm and saying, No! We will not comply concerning for “Abortifacient drugs and birth control”. Americans in every State should stand behind them and bring forth a legal challenge.

    Fraudulent Conveyance of a Legislative Act

    Proved and never denied throughout all legal proceedings, the Congressional leadership acted with fraudulent intent. The Democrat leadership took an unrelated House Bill (H.R. 3590, named the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009”). They extracted the entire contents of said legislation, then replaced the contents with the Senate’s original bill (‘America’s Healthy Future Act,” S.1796 ), a precursor to the “Act.” They did this to give the appearance of Constitutional legality in passage of the “Act”.

    Then the leadership with fraudulent intent substituted the original name “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” (H.R. 3590) with “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to surreptitiously give Obamacare a “House Designation Number”. Constitutional law states, only the House of Representatives has Constitutional authority to originate a revenue raising Bills. The House accepted the Senate bill for expediency independent of any written House bill.

    Obamacare vulnerable on the “tax” issue

    What also makes this issue ripe for review: the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled that the penalties were in fact taxes. Will other corporate leaders stand up and be counted along with “Hobby Lobby?” Regardless, whether the entire Congress ruled “H.R. 3590” should be the law of the land, the United States Constitution says otherwise. They would have to revoke Article 1, Section 7, and Paragraph 1. This has not happened.

    How Obamacare breaks the Constitution

    Indisputably, the First and Fourteenth Amendments are “positive law” Let’s up the ante. I say the Obamacare

    “Act” “H.R.3590” breaks the 1st Amendment,

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

    and the 14th Amendment,

    No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Within the Obamacare “Act” H.R.3590 the ‘General Government,’ in violation of the 1st Amendment, granted religious exceptions to various religious sects. See pages 326 and 2105 citing “religious conscience exemptions” in a very specific unconstitutional way. Practitioners of the Islamic or Muslim religion and Amish religious sects are exempt from provisions that punish or tax individuals for not complying with the provision of the “Act” that mandates purchasing of health insurance. Who can dispute the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from writing any law that gives religious organizations, preference based upon membership in religious organizations.

    None can dispute that ‘preferential treatment” of any individual based upon membership in a religious sect is prohibited. The U.S. Constitution prohibits making any law that does not apply with equal force that conclusively demonstrates a the violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection.” A review of the provision set forth in the “Act” states:

    (A) Religious Conscience Exemption Such a term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has an effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the ‘patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” which certifies that such individual is – (i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof which is described in section 1402 (g)(1), and (ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section Also see Section 1402(g).

    Another point, of contention: this above section of the “Act” describes a religious opt- out from Social security. ‘H.R. 3590” now incorporates the same exemption, and vest the Commissioner of Social Security (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the statute does not make clear) the authority to give exemptions to favored religious sects.

    U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

    Interesting, the Department of Justice attempted to surreptitiously misled the court’s in Purpura v. Sebelius, Case # 11-7275, to justify the exemption clause in the “Act” asserting it did not violate the 1st Amendment citing Walz v Tax Comm’n of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970) by intentionally misapplying the contents therein, rightly trusting the Hoodlums in Black Robes wouldn’t bother to read the cited case, or even realize a property case does not offend the “Establishment Clause.” Ironically, their citation solidified Purpura’s argument. In fact the religious exemptions to Muslims and Amish, etc. violate not only the 1st but also the 14th Amendment. This brings to mind a Biblical verse in Proverbs; 12:13

    The wicked is snared by the transgression of his own lips; but the just shall come out of trouble.

    In Walz v Tax Comm’n of the City of NY Judge Harlan made clear in his decision: neutrality in application requires an “equal protection” mode analysis. Nowhere do we find neutrality in the “Act” H.R.3590.

    Judge Harlan stated that:

    Two requirements requirement’s frequently articulate and applied in our case for achieving this goal are “neutrality” and “voluntarism,” e.g. see Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 305 (1963) (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Goldberg); 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (concurring Justice Goldberg): Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).”… Government must neither legislate to accord benefits that favor religion overnon-religion, nor sponsor a particular sect, nor try to encourage participation in or abnegation of religion. Mr. Justice Goldberg’s concurring opinion in (p695) Abington which I joined, set forth these principles:

    The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that the government neither engage in nor compel religious practices, that it affects no favoritism among sects or between religious and nonreligious beliefs. [My emphasis]

    Any law must apply with equal force to everyone. “H.R. 3590” abridges every individual not affiliated with an Islamic or Amish sect.’ this is a direct violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments. It is inarguable “H.R. 3590” favors and respects one religion over another failing to prescribe a stand for such privileged exemptions [Muslims and Amish]. It is also, important to note, if one is not a member of the favored religion that individual is subject to a penalty for failure to comply as so outlined in the provision of the “Act” is without “due process” 5th Amendment violation or any appeal process; clearly an overextension of any clause set forth in the Constitution.

    The blatant violation of the 14th Amendment is glaring; if any citizen decides to act on faith and trust in God, and not any human insurer to manage either risks or crisis, the “Act” forbids that person from acting on his own conscience. Yet this same act grants special privileges to select religious sects only. That exemption is based not on individual conscience but instead sects!

    The “Act” makes clear; no individual may decide for himself that participation in such a program is a sin. The

    Government mandates that they fund, for example, abortion- inducing drugs set forth in the “Act” regardless of their religious objections. Are Christians and Jews to be denied their religious conscience exemption and be made to violate their religious beliefs? I say never!

    Interestingly, the Muslims exemption is based upon Sharia law. It stands to reason that a precedent is being set that allows Sharia law to abrogate Constitutional law as well as statutory law. Do not the provisions set forth in violate “equal protection and treatment”? Does not this “Act” elevate the Muslim faith above Christianity and Judaism, and other religions including secular atheism, Is not secular atheism a belief system which fundamentally is what every religion is?

    It bears repeating: this unconstitutional Obamacare “Act” H.R.3590 is a deprivation of liberty, and has no severability clause. Therefore any single violation of the U.S. Constitution renders the entire “Act”

    “null and void.”

    where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that the courts will be alerted to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief. (Supreme Court, held in Bell v Hood 327 US 678, 66S.Ct. 773 90 L.Ed. 939)

    Previously stated, violations of Articles and Amendments were clearly presented. I will now conclusively demonstrate that not only does Hobby Lobby have a viable action, but also any employee who gets fired or laid off on account of this bill has Constitutional standing to sue for damages. Therefore all 45,000 employees in the ‘Medical Device Industries’ should call their lawyers for a class action (if they’re not too timid to take on the administration) on account of the unconstitutional implementation of Obamacare.

    Does the Constitution means what it says?

    Irrefutably proved the “Act” violated the 1st Amendment. It grants “preferential treatment” to select religious sects. Most importantly, in Part I, it is inarguable that any “Taxes” that exist throughout from its inception was/is unconstitutional because the “Act” “originated” in the Senate.

    Any law must apply with equal force, as proven. Obamacare (“H.R. 3590”) abridges the rights of every person not affiliated with an Islamic or Amish sect. Exemptions from any penalty, whether granted to flesh- and- blood persons or companies, lie at the heart of the matter. Clearly granting privileges to favored religious sects directly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. One could also argue it violates Title VII of the civil rights law.

    As written, in 2013 each mandate takes effect along with unconstitutional punishments, and taxes become law. The Obamacare “Act” levies taxes on incomes without apportionment in violation of Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4:

    No Capitation or other direct. Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    It is inarguable that Obamacare taxes individuals and entities, discriminately, and without apportionment among the various states. For that reason alone, Obamacare, according to the Constitution, must become “null and void” by positive law. Consider also Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1:

    The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in several States.

    This raises another issue subject to litigation. Any “Act” to levy a direct Tax upon persons, as a penalty, violates the 10th Amendment:

    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.

    Clearly, that makes any “individual mandate” an unapportioned capitation tax, hence another violation of the Constitution.

    Constitutional challenges to Obamacare

    It is undeniable numerous constitutional challenges exist, and were proven thus far for the Courts to render this ‘Act” unconstitutional. The only obstacles the American people are facing are the hoodlums in black. They either refuse, or else are too timid, to adhere to their oath of office. Not to mention progressive reprobates in black robes that have sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver. Or the man- child that would establish a United States Monarchy while occupying the White House in the last stole election. (But that’s for another article).

    Blatant Discrimination, 14th Amendment Violation

    The discriminatory structure of the penalty (Tax punishment) establishes a violation of “positive law” that mandates adjudication. This is especially true in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. As written, the Act imposes regulations on larger corporations with more than 10 operating facilities, and exempts businesses with less than 10 operating facilities. This clearly penalizes growth by selective regulations, under the threat of punishment. That’s discriminatory and preferential treatment.

    One need only look at the restaurant industry. The Obamacare “Act” discriminates against chain restaurants and

    exempts smaller restaurants. By law, business establishments must be all subject or all exempt, if “equal justice and treatment” means a thing.

    Obamacare deliberately exempts all federal branches of government from the mandates, but forces the citizens to comply. Congress elevated themselves above the people with “special” and better services than those the American people must accept as defined in Healthcare Plans. This violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment and also violates Title VII.

    Obamacare grants special benefits to selective groups, like Unions and the stooge- like community organizations (Communist groups such as Obama’s SEIU). Again these exceptions violate “equal protection.” Obamacare penalizes citizens with existing healthcare policies (“Cadillac Plans”) that offer better coverage than the government limit. It forces those persons to pay an additional tax. So much for Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1,and Amendment 14.

    This brings me to the State Discrimination.

    Unconstitutional State Discrimination

    Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1, states:

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in several States.

    Obamacare blatantly discriminates against several States. New Jersey and a majority of other sister states must fund Obamacare unequally. But the leaders of the Senate selectively granted special financial packages and exemptions to various States through political bribery to secure passage of Obamacare, and passed on their costs to those States without any “special exemptions” and or “special financial packages.” This also is “unequal treatment.” Again, a violation of Article 4, section 2, Paragraph 1.

    Congress unconditionally granted special exemptions through waivers. The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 1000 waivers related to employment- based coverage to:

    • Self- insured employer plans [Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi secured waivers for Restaurateurs in her District],

    • Special friends (donors) of the Obama administration,

    • Multiple “mini- med” products sold to employers or individuals,

    • Political bribery waivers to state government allowing restricted annual limits on behalf of the issuers of state mandated policies if the state law required policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010, and;

    • Last but not least, several foundations who are Obama’s progressive cheerleaders. The Robert Wood Johnson foundation, whose board of trustees include Obama’s health- care czar Nancy Ann DeParic, is a prize (and highly convenient) example.

    Illegal “Takings” void “Due Process”

    Obamacare illegally grants this renegade administration the power, under the color of law, to confiscate property of persons that refuse to comply with their mandates. More serious, any person or company that refuses is without recourse in a court of law. The “Act” prohibits judicial review, in violation of Amendment 5. One could argue this is violation of Amendment 13; that would make it involuntary servitude. An argument exists based upon an illegal “taking” since no trial or appeal process exists. In short, this is nothing more than a governmental extortion scheme. Comply or suffer the consequences.

    It would also be noteworthy to address the provision in the “Act” that lets the federal government illegally confiscate 3.8 percent of the sale of your home (making the government your partner) and other capital investments outside normal capital gains taxes. Clearly we are looking at selective taxation which is also unconstitutional.

    Specific Welfare

    Admittedly, Congress made clear, the taxes and penalties set forth in Obamacare exist to fund insurance for those persons who don’t have it. However noble the intent, no Article or Amendment in the United States Constitution grants Congress such authority to dictate what any State, individual or enterprise may buy or choose not to buy. Secondly, no provision in the Constitution grants Congress the authority to create “Specific Welfare”!

    Inarguably, that provision violates Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1, the “commerce clause”; and distorts the meaning of “General welfare.” It does this by creating “specific welfare” and intruding into that realm by ordering a person and/or business enterprise to purchase/pay for a product or service for a “specific group” of people. That violates Supreme Court precedent; See, US v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) that prohibits the activities being promulgated by the “Act”. Obamacare levies taxes specifically to supply a product by taxing others. Even under the guise of “General Welfare” it would still be arguable that the “Act” constitutes “specific” welfare as held in US v. Butler.

    Thus far, numerous sovereign States have refused to implement or create “exchanges,” to place taxes on inferior

    and/or superior health care plans, or implement the other draconian Obamacare provisions. Nor can any law make Hobby Lobby, Inc. fund what violates their “religious conscience exemption,” specifically a mandate to pay for drugs or devices to deter the right to life. It would behoove the idiots in Congress to review the Constitution. Remember: every one of the reprobates that voted to pass Obamacare violated their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. (So did the reprobate who signed it into law, but he already stood in violation by occupying an office he is not qualified to occupy, as my lawyer said.) No one can excuse the fact that they signed this “act” to see what was in it! That in- of- itself is tantamount to a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

    “We the People” remind the Court: in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 the Court held:

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United states confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to essential to all written constitutions, that the law repugnant to the constitution is void: and that courts as other departments are bound by that instrument.

    The Constitution A Living Instrument????


    Beware of those who claim that the Constitution is a living instrument because they are seeking justification for its violation. They claim that it evolves or changes as the peoples' wants or needs change. They will call it outmoded, old-fashioned, antiquated, archaic, etc., trying to convince you that the Founders could not have foreseen the peoples' needs so long ago. These people will support Constitutional changes resulting from Amendments, Supreme Court decisions, Presidential Proclamations or Voter Referendums.

    Amendments: While I admit that minor changes can lawfully be made to the Constitution by Amendment, I will not accept major changes that are in direct conflict with the Founders intent, e.g. the 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th Amendment changed the method of taxation from indirect to direct. The 17th Amendment removed an important check against federal government growth. The Constitution is a written contract between We The People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent.

    "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

    "The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.

    Supreme Court Decisions: "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." Article III, Section 2, US Constitution. These words grant Congress some authority over the US Supreme Court that should be exercised. The Congress also has the power to create as many inferior courts to the Supreme Court as it deems necessary (see Art. III, Sec. 1). Restricting the kinds of cases heard by the Supreme Court and creating more inferior courts would reduce the power of the US Supreme Court and get cases settled much sooner.

    I would also introduce legislation requiring the Supreme Court to justify their decisions by citing case law, the Federalist Papers, The Constitution, etc., to prevent them from making new law as was done with Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun who wrote that decision for the Court has recently left this earth to face his own Judgment for his role in the extermination of over 35 million unborn babies. The Congress should have prevented the Court from hearing this case allowing the individual states to settle the issue.

    Presidential Proclamations: The President has the authority to issue all the "Executive Orders" he see fit to the Executive Branch of government. However, he does not have the authority to issue orders or proclamations to the people because that changes our form of government from a Republic to a Dictatorship.

    "All legislative Powers, herein granted shall be vested in a Congress..." Art. I, Sec. 1, US Constitution.

    "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." James Madison, Federalist essay #47.

    Voter Referendums are not provided for in our Constitution because governments ruled by voter referendums (majority rule) are democracies not republics (rule by law). Click here for an explanation of the differences between republics and democracies.

    "This constitution, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2.


    Are We Required To Accept Changes To Our Constitution?


    "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

    "Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

    "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

    "It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.

    "The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

    "The constitution is an instrument from the people and a construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from the words employed in the document; and the courts may not color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their views as to how it should be written." Ervin v. Collins, Fla. 85 S. 852; 59 ALR 706.

    "The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

    "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

    "Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.

    "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson.

    "Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).

    "Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all-powerful government." Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

    The wider, and darker, goals

    The Federal Courts have held “equal protection” rights may be violated by gross abuse of power, invidious discrimination or fundamentally unfair procedures. Make no mistake, Dictator Obama is an Islamic/Marxist. The goal of his administration’s policies is to remove Christianity and Judaism in the United States and transform the United States into a socialist/Marxists regime. Again, it behooves everyone to read the 45 goals of the Communist party for the takeover of the United States as recorded in Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34- A35 January 10, 1963. Just type congressional record appendix, pp.A34-A35 into your Google browser and it will be there. If you can comprehend what you read there, you will see they have accomplished their goals. They, meaning Media, Academia, disarmament Unions, and the courts. Homosexuality, promiscuity as normal, elimination of pray etc. read them all, each one will make you sick to your stomach.

    It’s time to wake up and come out of the coma!

    Readers may further investigate this for themselves by visiting the pages of: Gun Owners of America and as well as other sites.

    As an afterthought; All of our dead forefathers who fought and died protecting our great Constitution had all turned over in their graves when Obama got elected and are still today.

    I would like to especially thank all those white race traitors and those non-citizen blacks (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), never overturned) who voted for this treasonous black.

    If the TRUTH HURTS – too bad!

    If my above writing offends any of my Facebook friends who MAY HAVE voted for that tyrant you can unfriend me if you wish.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2735819, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/28/2016 11:26:36 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,187.01 -41.29 -0.23%
S&P 500 2,152.78 -7.15 -0.33%
NASD 5,285.78 -19.94 -0.38%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes