CASE NOW DOCKETED WITH U.S. SUPREME COURT
by Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr.
(Nov. 15, 2011) — The Supreme Court has docketed the case Purpura v , Sebelius as docket case number 11-7275. This case can restore the Constitution to its original intent. Unlike the other cases, this case identified 19 specific violations of the US Constitution and how each violation affects each and every person specifically with real, imminent harm that will and is occurring.
The problem with all the other cases related to the health care law is that they only address a limited number of violations. And even then many of the arguments are not fully addressed. The common item is the violation of the Commerce Clause and Amendment 10. For instance, the case Florida ex rel. Bondi et al. v. HHS et al. focuses on the Individual Mandate but failed to address the side effects of the Individual Mandate. For instance, if the Government can order someone to buy a product, what else can be ordered? Is this regulating commerce or is it dictating commerce? Isn’t this also the very essence of involuntary servitude? Who, after all, would buy health-care insurance in advance if all they needed to do is wait until they get sick and then apply?
But what about all of the other provisions in the law to insure the Individual Mandate is obeyed? To fail to hear Purpura v. Sebelius would clearly deprive the American people of a “fair and full” hearing on the constitutionality of the law. Just recently the HHS has started to implement the requirements to collect medical records on everyone. But doesn’t Amendment 4 state “… to be secure in their persons, housings, papers, and effects, …”? So how can law give the government the privilege to invade a person’s privacy without any just cause? This is just one of the 19 violations.
As with many laws, one must look at the whole law and what it does. Purpura v. Sebelius cites with specificity and particularity throughout the 15 Counts of the Petition 19 specific violations of the U.S. Constitution, violations that range from the origination of the law in the Senate to its signing by a person who has admitted he is not eligible to sign bills into law. Shocked? Examine the eligibility requirements to be President and then compare that to Mr. Obama’s statements about his parentage.
Even our right to not have our life, liberty and property seized without at least some due process is violated by this law – yes, Amendment 5 is out the window. And don’t expect to go to Court to challenge the government. The law prohibits judicial review. Our Courts and Judges are made powerless to protect the common man. The men and women who are supposed to protect us against an overreaching government have been made into powerless figureheads, rubber stamps to the overreaching dictates of the faceless bureaucrat.
The Petitioners submitted a Motion to Expedite for Extraordinary Circumstance as allowed by Supreme Court Rule 21. Surely, following the Courts review of Purpura v. Sebelius the inadequacy of the Florida ex rel. Bondi et al. v. HHS et al. and the other cases will become evident. Especially since Petitioners proved the violations by citing provisions in the law that clearly violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16. Also identified are violations of various provisions of Articles 1, 2, 4, and 6. This law even violates the Posse Comitatus Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Law, HIPAA, and the Anti-Trust Laws which were intended to protect us from invasive and dictatorial government power.
To ignore these violations would clearly be a violation of the Supreme Court’s fiduciary duty and responsibility to protect the Constitution, the rule of law and the people. In all fairness to the Supreme Court, it is understandable it was unable to consider the Petition within the one-day window prior to giving the Defendants an opportunity to reply, even considering that the opposition has failed to respond as required numerous times in the Circuit and District Courts. The Supreme Court now has a Petition before it with irrefutable evidence that changes the dynamics. I can only pray that after reading the Government’s response, if one is presented, our Supreme Court will hear this case. Of course the Government may decide to gamble and not reply – after all, they have no defense or they would have presented one in the District Court. I can only pray the Supreme Court recognized the importance of this case and elects to hear it.
Considering the issues put before the Court, the Court can issue a sua sponte order opting to choose Purpura v. Sebelius as the lead Petition for the challenges to the law. This would result in each of the violations identified being addressed and putting the country back on the road to real rule of law under the U.S. Constitution.
Of the utmost importance for the Republic, each Constitutional challenge submitted by Purpura v. Sebelius must be addressed to set a precedent to protect the Petitioners and all Americans against the violations contained in the law and Congress’s refusal to adhere to the U.S. Constitution. Since when can our Republic, which is instituted by a written Constitution, create a law, to name just a few items, that eliminates judicial review (Amendment 5), allow real warrantless searches (Amendment 4), create excessive fines (Amendment 8), give special privileges to religious sects (Amendment 1), impose unequal treatment (Amendment 14), and violating existing laws without repealing them?
I can only pray the people of the United States let their Representatives know about Purpura v, Sebelius (Supreme Court Docket Case No. 11-7275), as well as every person, newspaper and media outlet in the Nation, respectfully requesting that they do all in their power to have this Petition heard in its entirety. I ask for a “Miracle on 34th Street (1947)”. I ask the Supreme Court to address “We the People’s” case.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.