Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting on Feb. 17 to Discuss Health Care/Eligibility Challenge

PURPURA V. SEBELIUS ASKS IF OBAMA WAS QUALIFIED TO SIGN THE BILL

by Sharon Rondeau

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide to Hear Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges Obama's eligibility to have signed the health care law?

(Feb. 17, 2012) — 11:49 a.m. ET – The Post & Email has just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court will be conferencing today to decide whether or not to hear the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill and Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr. call their challenge the “We the People” brief.

Purpura stated that his case is “the best one” to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by Obama.  He had submitted a Request for Reargument to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case on January 17, 2012.

Purpura has stated that “the reason they don’t want to take the case and why they’re most frightened is Count 6,” which claims that if Obama is not eligible to serve as President, the bill is null and void.

A prayer request was put out by Purpura, and today he stated that he is “getting calls from all over the country” in response to it.  “People are praying at the Oklahoma Air Force base; people throughout the country…they’re even praying at the Supreme Court!  They want their lawsuit heard,” he said.

A new 17-page brief with 15 pages of argument sent to the Supreme Court was dated January 27, with Purpura representing himself.  “What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,” Purpura told The Post & Email.  “Count 6 is the most important.”

Purpura also said that “Sotomayor and Kagan cannot hear this case” because of their conflict of interest, having been appointed to the court by Obama.

"Count 6" asks how Obama can "exercise the authority of the office of President" if he is not a "natural born Citizen"
Page 7 explains "Count 6," which asks if Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to serve as President

Count 6 reads:

18.  Count 6  Violation Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5; No Constitutional question before this Honorable Court surpasses the importance concerning this issue that must be adjudicated.  Petitioner has never stated Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States.  That being said, the Constitutional question exists:  is Mr. Obama a “natural born Citizen”, if not; how can he exercise the authority of the office of President?  Failure to address this Count would constitute a desertion from ones [sic] sworn fiduciary duty and betrayal of the United States Constitution.  (See Article 6, Paragraph 2).  The Court must consider during the years Mr. Obama was developing a power base and running for President Congress 8-times attempted to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy…

 19. Therefore, the question still exists whether Mr. Obama was eligible to sign “Act” in law, make appointments, institute regulations or hold the office of president?

Of this new development, Purpura told The Post & Email:

This is really important, because they’re disenfranchising the voters if they don’t hear it.  The first three pages, which are the opening statement, will tell you everything, and so will the last page.  The only count that really counts here is Count 6.  As you know, there are ballot challenges throughout the country, and what I told them flat-out is, “You have no choice but to hear this because we have a constitutional crisis.”  I’m believing, that if you read Count 6, because that’s the most important one in the whole brief, they’re sort-of trapped if they’re honest.  Kagan and Sotomayor cannot by U.S. statute participate.  So we’re in great shape in reality. But will they obey the statutes, or will they do what this administration is doing:  ignoring the law that are on the books in the United States.

Purpura then read from the third page of the brief:

It is incumbent upon this Court to settle the issue of ‘eligibility’ post haste to afford those in the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an “eligible” candidate to be on the ballot in November.  To do otherwise disenfranchises all voters and continues the constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to address Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign’s challenge.  To ignore this constitutional challenge will have devastating consequence which this Court bears full responsibility for failing to perform its fiduciary duty pursuant to your sworn oath taken by every Member of this Court.

Print Friendly

8 Responses to "Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting on Feb. 17 to Discuss Health Care/Eligibility Challenge"

  1. Tom the Veteran   Monday, February 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM

    The sad part is the Supreme Court refuses to do its job! They know that this isn’t going to go away and they also know this is costing the treasuries of the various States plenty to adjudicate these pleadings, not to mention the money it’s costing individual Citizens to move these challenges forward. We know the Supreme Court is fully aware of the truth and the ramifications it will cause to our country, that’s why Justice Thomas said they (the court) is “avoiding the issue”. They have chosen to do the easy thing instead of the right thing. They have an obligation to reach down and take this issue on once and for all and let the chips fall where they may.

    -U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said it best when he wrote in Cohens v.Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

    “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

    For God and Country

  2. Charlie Resseguie   Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    My Friends, These Ballot Challenges are going to pay off. I believe they are happening now in 20 states,there has got to be some patriotic judges who will stand up with us.
    I would suggest that we focus hard and steady on these. The above article is exciting
    and there will be more to come friends, “We have not yet begun to fight”.

  3. Ticked Off Too   Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    > “But will they obey the statutes, or will they do what this administration is doing: ignoring the law that are on the books in the United States.” <

    I'll take "Ignoring" for $2000, Mr. Purpura.

    The question which will still remain is … what are "We the People" going to do about it? We have been embroiled in a Constitutional Crisis for over 3 years and all the hot shots can talk about is beating the aka usurper at the polls. What a joke!

    We've tried all manner of lawsuits only to be told for 3 years we do not have standing.

    We have marched in the streets — finally gaining attention — only to back down and hide in the bushes crying for the military and all those who have taken the oath to defend and protect the constitution to come to our rescue. Well, they planned the mission and put out the call to action … and nobody showed up to support them.

    Now, taking the Ballot Challenge approach, although being heard, all precedent and legal meaning is being thrown on the bonfire that is the Constitution to keep it burning strong. What are we going to do about it?

    And please, Please, PLEASE don't tell me we will simply beat them at the polls. I am not that naive.

  4. NUTN2SAY   Friday, February 17, 2012 at 10:57 PM

    MORRISON R. WAITE. The seventh United States Supreme Court Chief Justice as you know in the SCOTUS case of Minor v. Happersett, has already in other words said, that Obama is a genuine usurper because of his non citizen father.

    I fail to understand why people refuse to scream at the top of their lungs MORRISON R. WAITE. This is a historical fact that, as from what I can tell, people who claim to be challenging Obama, for some reason cannot bring this Constitutional Historical Fact to the attention of everybody in America. Why?

  5. meyerlm   Friday, February 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    Rest Assured Bob, there are at least THREE of U.S. Patriots that do “See the Forest for the Trees!”
    Shakespere said it best in MacBeth: “Where Gottest Thou that Goosed-Look!!~Durnam Woods, comes unto Dunsanine!!”

  6. PaulP   Friday, February 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    don’t worry jim. thetre will be sevral of us there lickety-split for you.

  7. Bob1939   Friday, February 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

    So what we have now is the three branches of government all feeding gluttonously out of the same public trough and vowing with each other not to infringe on each other’s territory – NOT AT ALL WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS CREATED. So here is what we are going to get from our Judiciary re the above issue – NOTHING as usual – remember “they are trying to evade that issue”. We the People are generally so very dumb, nonchalant, apathetic, lackadaisical, lethargic and downright lazy that we won’t see what is happening to until our above mentioned three branches of government have totally and traitorously dismantled our Constitution and disembowelled our beloved Country – all done through their own selfish, personal greed. Not as if there aren’t many examples of this before us to learn from… Israel, Rome, Stalin, Hither, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Greece, and now Obama in consort with the other two branches of government. I guess we get what we deserve if we DON’T CARE TO WAKE UP.

  8. RacerJim   Friday, February 17, 2012 at 12:32 PM

    Well darn…the SCOTUS building is only a 30-minute drive from my home in Rockville Md but I’ve got a family health matter to deal with all afternoon otherwise I’d be there lickity-split with a big “HEAR THIS CASE” sign in hand!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.