Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

The Tenth Amendment states, "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."

(Jun. 27, 2011) — A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that a defendant who claimed that a federal law had rendered her injured due to “disregard of the federal structure of the Government” was justified.  The Supreme Court remanded the appellant’s case back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, declaring that the appellant, Carol Anne Bond, had standing under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and individually.

Page 2 of the unanimous decision, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, states, in part:

Federalism has more than one dynamic.  In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism ‘”secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,'”…It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons with a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions…Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States.  In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations…

“Positive law(s)” is referenced as man-made law as opposed to “natural law.”

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines “federalism” as:

Political system that binds a group of states into a larger, noncentralized, superior state while allowing them to maintain their own political identities. Certain characteristics and principles are common to all successful federal systems: a written constitution or basic law stipulating the distribution of powers; diffusion of power among the constituent elements, which are substantially self-sustaining; and territorial divisions to ensure neutrality and equality in the representation of various groups and interests. Changes require the consent of those affected. Successful federal systems also have a sense of common nationality and direct lines of communication between the citizens and all the governments that serve them. Examples of modern federal systems include the U.S., Brazil, Germany, and Nigeria. See also Federalist papers; Federalist Party.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had originally ruled that the appellant, Carol Anne Bond, did not have standing to challenge the federal statute by which she was charged because her action did not occur in conjunction with that of a state.  The federal law, 18 USC 229, had been passed “to comply with provisions of a treaty (page 6),” the United Nations’ Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) implemented in 1997, which states, in part:

The Convention prohibits all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons. It requires each State Party to destroy chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities it possesses, as well as any chemical weapons it may have abandoned on the territory of another State Party. The verification provisions of the CWC not only affect the military sector but also the civilian chemical industry, world-wide, through certain restrictions and obligations regarding the production, processing and consumption of chemicals that are considered relevant to the objectives of the Convention. They will be verified through a combination of reporting requirements, routine on-site inspections of declared sites and short-notice challenge inspections. The Convention also contains provisions on assistance in case a State Party is attacked or threatened with attack by chemical weapons and on promoting the trade in chemicals and related equipment among States Parties.

Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr., who are representing themselves in a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Treasury and Health & Human Services, had recently filed an appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in New Jersey which claims that the health care bill signed into law by Obama last year is unconstitutional.  In light of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision regarding Tenth Amendment and individual sovereignty rights, Mr. Purpura shared his thoughts with The Post & Email as to how his case might be affected.

Ginsburg has always, always supported the rights of a criminal.  She has given every opportunity for every criminal to bring a case on a constitutional basis.  The last two paragraphs seem to indicate that the law blinded her, as she says, “You have the right to bring these cases, even if it doesn’t affect you.”

It was a 9-0 ruling; how can they now say that the plaintiffs have no standing?  They can’t!  You have a unanimous decision, on a constitutional basis, which helps every single one of these health care lawsuits for standing.  Anyone could now file a lawsuit claiming that he or she has standing.  How could they say no?  How could they say it’s OK for a criminal, but it’s not OK for a citizen?

Ginsburg decided to write her own decision.  I love the fact that she wanted to do that.  Let’s say I’m denied standing.  It would be suicidal, because it’s the Third Circuit.  I can’t see how they could deny this.  You’ve already established the rules; you’ve already established precedent, that I have standing.  Look at the last two sentences, and it will blow your mind.

Kennedy’s ruling was good; don’t get me wrong, and we’re going to cite it.  We have a surprise coming within the next week.

If you abrogate the constitution of the states, you abrogate the United States Constitution by which every state is afforded a republican form of government.  A republican form of government is based upon the rule of law, not man.

This is the supreme decision that will affect cases from now through the next generation.  It’s going to say, “According to the Constitution, any citizen can bring a lawsuit.”  They opened Pandora’s Box.  You can never abrogate the Constitution.  Even though she confessed to being a criminal, Bond was right.  No treaty is valid if it violates the Constitution.

I think Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts knew what they were doing.  They couldn’t get four judges to take a case regarding Obama’s eligibility, but they sure can now, can’t they?  What’s their argument?  They’ve already ruled that we have standing.  My belief is that the Supreme Court realized in this case that the “standing” argument has been used once too often to deny people their civil rights, and constitutional rights cannot be abrogated.  In this case, they didn’t turn around and say this woman was innocent.  She was already guilty.  The Justice Department just wanted a grand slam to give her a double jeopardy.  But when the Supreme Court looked at this case – and normally, would they have taken this case?  Absolutely not – but I believe they saw that this case was the opening to restore constitutional law.

This case has more ramifications than anyone has even dreamed of.  No one has looked at what this truly means.  I don’t hear the news or anybody talking about it.  My lawsuit has flown under the radar because there was no way they could stop it.  If they had publicized it, it would have gone viral.  That’s why it’s been buried.  And the Congress, whether they’re Democrat or Republican, are playing the game.  We have 15 constitutional violations and four statutory laws for a total of 19 violations.  They didn’t want to bring this because it would throw health care right out the window.  And now I have standing.

Purpura v. Sebelius has been covered in depth here.

Mr. Purpura has reported that numerous judges have recused themselves from hearing the case.  The Post & Email reported previously that Laster and Purpura had filed the lawsuit “not just on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the sovereign citizens of the United States.”  At that time, the plaintiffs, like others who had brought lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, had been told they did not have “standing” to sue.