Honorable Jorge Solis to Rule on whether Muslims are exempt from ObamaTax

 The Honorable Jorge A. Solis to rule on the case Taitz v Sebelius 3-12-cv-3251  and on a  motion to stay  for preliminary injunction of ObamaTax brought by California attorney Orly Taitz.

.

Posted By CotoBlogzz

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA – The Honorable Jorge A. Solis, H.W. Bush appointee in Northern District of Texas is to rule on the case Taitz v Sebelius 3-12-cv-3251  and on a  motion to stay for preliminary injunction of ObamaTax brought by California attorney Orly Taitz.

While the case originated in the Central District of California, it was was transferred to the Northern District of Texas, when initially appointed judge, Honorable Dolly Gee ruled No Venue in CA.

From the cotton fields in Abilene to next in line as Chief Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Jorge Solis has a story any parent would be proud to tell. Despite having only an eighth grade education herself, Judge Solis’s mother encouraged her son by explaining that he could either pick cotton the rest of his life or get an education.

Judge Solis was one of seven children. Because of his parents’ emphasis on education, all seven of their children went to college and five of the seven obtained college degrees. Judge Solis was the only one of the seven to obtain a graduate degree.

.

After graduating high school, he attended McMurry University, where he earned a degree in history in 1973. Then his dream of attending UT became a reality when he was accepted into law school..  His first trial was the prosecution of a traffic ticket in JP court in Abilene. For many years after the trial, the opposing lawyer on the case teased Judge Solis about how he “tried the case like he was in front of the Supreme Court.” Judge Solis  was elected the Criminal District Attorney in 1983 and reelected in 1986. Then, in 1987, at the suggestion of Bill Thomas, the retiring Judge, Judge Solis ran for the 350th Judicial District in Abilene. In the interim, he worked as a solo practitioner in Abilene in 1988.  In 1988, Judge Solis was elected to the bench and served on the 350th Judicial District Court from 1989 to 1991

Judge Solis, like many other first time judges, was surprised by the difference in the mindset required of a good judge. Although Judge Solis had experience as an advocate on both sides of the criminal and civil dockets, he had to repeatedly remind himself during his first year that he needed to “let the lawyers be the advocates.”

Although he thought his chances were “slim to none,” he decided to apply for an opening on the federal bench in Dallas. Upon the recommendation of Senator Gramm, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Solis in 1991.

Even though he is a federal judge with the inherent power that the position brings, Judge Solis often reminds his staff: “We should stay humble.” He likes to tell the story of one of his first cases on the federal bench. He had sent a number of notes back to the jury signing only his name. Eventually, a question came back from the jury, “Who is this sending these notes back to us?”

After each trial, Judge Solis asks the jury to comment on their experience. The number one complaint he receives from juries is redundancy. The number two complaint is that lawyers are not professional, which is a pet peeve of his. While lawyers must be zealous advocates of the client’s case, a good advocate should not resort to gamesmanship and unprofessional conduct directed at the opposing lawyers.

Judge Solis lives in Dallas with his wife and is active in the St. Elizabeth of Hungary church. He has three children, the oldest of whom is a lawyer in Boston. He serves as the liaison from the federal judiciary to the State Bar of Texas. He is also involved in the Criminal Law Committee of the State Bar of Texas, which has been compiling a series of books with pattern jury charges for criminal cases.

Taitz brought forward 2 main arguments:

1.       In 2800 pages of ObamaCare, Obama administration buried a provision, where one can be completely exempt from paying even a cent in Health Care penalty/tax, if buying insurance is against his religious believes. Such aversion to insurance can be found in Muslim religion, where insurance is considered a form of gambling. That means that individuals, who are Christians and Jews would have to carry on their backs the burden of ObamaTax, while Muslims will be exempt.  Taitz argued that such religious discrimination   is flagrantly unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, Freedom of Religion Clause and 
Equal Protection clause.

2.      Additionally Taitz argued that ObamaTax is unconstitutional, as it was signed into law by Obama, who is a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, who got into the White House by virtue of fraud and use of forged identification papers and a stolen CT SSN 042-68-4425. Taitz attached over a hundred pages of sworn affidavits and other evidence confirming fraud and forgery in Obama’s IDs

 The case should be entered on PACER by the end of the day  Monday August 27, 2012

Chief Justice Roberts Guts Congressional Power and May Still Have Invalidated ObamaCare

By Chriss Street

Conservatives should be ecstatic that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts sided with the four liberal Justices in ruling the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is constitutional as a tax, while siding with the four conservative Justices that the law is un-constitutional under the Commerce Clause.  Roberts just humiliated President Obama as a dishonest and contemptible politician, gutted the social welfare and regulatory state and appears to have set-up the entire Obamacare law to be constitutionally invalidated.     Senator Barack Obama cemented his relationship with John Roberts by leading the opposition by liberal Senators to Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Obama said he did not trust Roberts’ political philosophy on

Constitutional questions such as: “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.”

  Obama as a constitutional lawyer knew Congress’ power to exercise control over individuals’ personal lives began through Supreme Court decisions during the President Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration that expanded the Constitution’s Commerce Clause far beyond its limited plain reading: “The Congress shall have Power”...“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.      

President Obama may have stridently denied Obamacare was a tax, but the legislation contains 21 new taxes that raise $800 billion over the next ten years.  On the same day as the Obamacare decision, the Court also ruled 6-3 that a law convicting a California politician named Xavier Alvarez for falsely claiming he won the Medal of Honor was unconstitutional.  Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: “Though few might find (Alvarez's) statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.” Having ruled dishonest boasting by politicians cannot be a crime; Roberts reasoned Obama’s dishonesty does not invalidate Obamacare: “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.”

Before 1937, Congressional efforts to pass legislation forcing unionization, minimum-wage laws, restrictions on agricultural planting and so forth were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as “not commerce.”  After winning re-election in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that would have given him the right to “pack” the Supreme Court in his favor by appointing six more Justices.  However, in what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", Justice Owen Roberts capitulated to Roosevelt’s threat to rig the Court by reversing his position and voting to expand the Commerce Clause to by uphold minimum wage laws as regulating “commerce”.  Four years later, an intimidated Court dispensed with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: “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”, as but a “truism” and not a limitation on Congressional power.

Thomas Jefferson warned the natural tendency is for government to grow, like a poisonous vine, it sprouts through any gap.  Giving Congress the power to freely regulate nearly everything, means they can choose which restraints to place on the self-interest of one regulated party in order to provide advantages to another.  Not only does this expansion of the Commerce Clause lead to the continual rise of the social welfare and regulatory state, it is the secret sauce that funds political crony capitalism.      

The Roberts Opinion that Obamacare is “not commerce” guts seventy-five years of the poisonous growth of the vines of government under the expanded Commerce Clause:

“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.””

In what may be Roberts ultimate legal slam-dunk of Obama, Roberts’ ruling that the President and Congress’ passed a tax now threatens to constitutionally invalidate all of Obamacare under Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution: “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.”  Although the law originated and was narrowly passed in the House and then the Senate wrote and passed their version of law, the House version hit a roadblock in the Senate.  So Democrats to avoid an even riskier close vote in the House and because they reasoned the legislation wasn’t a tax bill, pulled the Senate version of Obamacare and deemed it passed.  Failing to originate the final bill in the House allows another constitutional challenge that the law is invalid.

Conservatives should praise John Roberts as a brilliant legal tactician that has revived the Original Intent of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and vanquished Barack Obama’s quest for the Forward expansion of a Living Constitution.  At the still young age of 57, Chief Justice Roberts may have two more decades to honor the strict construction meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 

 

Click the Link to Listen to Chriss Street & Paul Preston on the Syndicated Radio Show “The Inside Education” Streaming Weekday Evenings from 7-10 PM.  http://www.mysytv.net/kmyclive.html


RELATED STORIES

Voter ID is not about Left or Right, Its about Freedom Stupid!

While all eyes were on Wisconsin, The Union Wreaks Havoc in SOCAL

President Obama's Green Immigration Strategy

How to fundamentally transform America:  Just like you eat an elephant - One school district at a time.

Wind Energy's Inconvenient Radioactivity