If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
PLAINTIFF IN THE “WE THE PEOPLE” LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE DERIDES BEHAVIOR OF THE NATION’S HIGHEST COURT
by Nicholas E. Purpura, blogging at Conservative News and Views, ©2012
(Mar. 1, 2012) — As stated in Part I, oral argument on the constitutionality of Obama-care will take place on March 26-28, 2012. But whatever the Court decides, the integrity of the Supreme Court will forever be soiled. No decision can or will be legitimate, nor cover the shame of this Supreme Court for failing to adhere to the Constitution and laws of the land.
Supreme Court justices refuse recusal
To begin with, two Justices hearing the matter have a “conflict of interest” in the outcome of the findings. Secondly, and more to the point: the Court, by refusing to address the 19 violations of the Constitution, prevents the setting of any precedent. This leaves the door open for future usurpation of the Constitution based upon the Court’s earlier acceptance of unconstitutional provisions set forth in the “Act.” The fancy Latin phrase for this is: stare decisis.
If the Court does find the individual mandate unconstitutional, and (God forbid) let stand the other provisions in the “Act,” every American will lose his freedom and liberty. This will create what one can only describe as a police state.
NOTE: The Act has no explicit severability clause. But that has not stopped the Supreme Court from “severing” a “bad” section out of a bill they otherwise like, whenever it suits them.—Ed.
Below is a condensed version of each violation. I hope this will open the eyes of every American, regardless of political persuasion. All Americans must ask: why would the Supreme Court refuse to address these draconian violations?
Count 1. Deals with Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution—the “Origination Clause” The “People” proved the Congressional leadership acted with fraudulent intent. They took an unrelated House Bill (H.R. 3590, named the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009”), extracted the entire contents of said legislation, then replaced the contents with the Senate’s originated 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”.
Thereafter 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 acquire a “House Designation Number”. Constitutional law states, only the House of Representatives has Constitutional authority to originate a revenue raising “Act”. The House accepted the Senate bill for expediency independent of any written House bill. In fact, both sides of the controversy asked Judge Roger Vinson (US District Court for Northern Florida) to address the legislative history of the Act. He found that the bill originated in the U.S. Senate. See, Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Service, —F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL285683 (N.D. Fla.2011) which documents that the House of Representatives were amending a Senate Bill, since it was found to have been originated in the Senate. So I ask, and so should you: why does your Supreme Court refuse to hear argument on this act of fraud? If I’m wrong please tell me how.
Note: you may do so in this comment space, so long as you obey the rules of civility.—Ed.
Count 2. “Commerce Clause” Again, the “Act” indisputably violates Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3, of the Constitution]. Furthermore the “Act” as written creates “Specific Welfare” which was found to be unconstitutional as far back as 1936; see Butler v. U.S. (citation omitted) because it levies taxes, fines, and fees specifically to supply a product to one specific group by taxing another specific group. This in-of-itself should have been enough to render the “Act” “null and void”.
As written the Act prohibits all judicial review. Thus the government can now dictate what a citizen will comply with, whatever they decide. This effectively grants the State police power under the auspices of the “Commerce Clause.” In effect this destroys our dual sovereignty structure [Amendment 10 violation].
To raise revenues to fund the “Act” [“Specific Welfare”] the government inserted provisions that employ extortion and intimidation under the “color of law” to force individuals and corporations comply and/or purchase or offer Health Insurance or suffer the consequence. This is clearly an unlawful tactic being used under the “color of law”. Not one of the briefs scheduled for oral argument on March 26-28, 2012 mention these facts. How a “full and fair” hearing can ignore them, is beyond my comprehension. So again I ask: why did the Supreme Court deny the “people” permission to participate at oral argument? Can anyone out there counter these facts?
Count 3. The “Act” violates Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12 of the Constitution: appropriating monies for an Army for four (4) years not two (2) years. On this fact alone no further argument is needed. What is more dangerous, the “act” specifically abrogates the “Posse Comitatus”1 granting the President unfettered authority to create a new “military” Ready Reserve Corps (the members of which shall receive “routine training,” which the Act does not define, and could include training with weapons; see Section 5210) with unfettered authority to deploy said Corps [federal troops in civilian law enforcement] without consent of the State governor [violation of State sovereignty Amend. 10]. Provisions allow the President to activate State National Guard troops, circumventing Congress in the absence of an emergency declaration of law, and to implement a draft on what he perceives to be a national emergency under his direct control. Again, no Petition to come before the Supreme Court in March addresses these facts. Can anyone submit a legal counterargument?
Count 4. The “Act” violates Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4, “Capitation taxes”, by explicitly taxing individuals and states discriminately.2 This also violates Amendment 14. Not a single one of the above violations are present or adequately framed in the pleadings before the Supreme Court in March of 2012 except in the “People’s” brief that they denied. Why?
Count 5. Violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraphs 3, 5, and 6, as well as an Amendment14 violation. It imposes taxes or duties on articles exported from State to State3 that has already caused immediate and future devastating injury. Secondly, Article 1, of the Constitution explicitly forbids “special preference”! Yet the government granted waivers to several States over other States. As written the “Act” grants specific financial incentives and special treatment to selective States. This reflects the blatant bribery that took place for the needed votes for passage. (The “Cornhusker Kickback” is the prize example.)
Count 6 Violates Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5. No Constitutional question before the Supreme Court surpasses the importance of this issue: Is Barack Hussein Obama a “natural born Citizen” or is he not? Therefore, the question remains whether Mr. Obama was eligible to sign the “Act” into law, make appointments, institute regulations or hold the office of president.
The Federal Courts throughout have received complaints on the issue of whether Mr. Obama is eligible to be placed on the ballot in November. This is/was the only comprehensive Petition that deals with both issues the “Act” and his eligibility. It was incumbent upon the Court to settle the issue to afford the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an eligible candidate. To do otherwise will disenfranchise the voters and continues the constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to address Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign’s challenge. There are many other legal actions pending to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. To ignore this constitutional crisis could have devastating consequence which this Court has to accept full responsibility for failing to perform your fiduciary duty.
Count 7. Violation of Amendment 16; instigated violations of Amendment 5, (due process) and 8, (excess fines). The Supreme Court refused to recognize when “proper judicial procedure” had been violated. Of the upmost importance, Defendants forfeited by failing to respond to this Count. Such non-response automatically ‘deems [Defendant] to have admitted the averment’See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). The reason is simple: no explanation exists to tax the same income a second time as well as levy taxes on income that was never existed. The provisions constituted extortion under the “color of law” levying excessive fines disproportionate in amounts violated Amendment 8, Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 9 paragraph 3; in which “No bill of attainder or “ex post facto” law shall be passed.
Count 8. The “Act” blatantly abrogates Amendment 4, and “HIPAA” rules. The government is now granted unfettered access to your individual bank accounts and financial records; the government can now transfer funds electronically to or from a person’s bank account to debit your account for fees and penalties. And, you are without judicial protection or judicial review that allows these invasions of your privacy.
In short, the government has a right to you private papers, access to your bank account void any proper judicial warrant. Your medical records are no longer private and will be open to government agencies without your consent. To my critics do you still advocate this “Act” is Constitutional? Do you still believe the Court acted to protect your rights?
Count 9. Violation of Amendments 5 and 13. The “Act” contains such violations as: “illegal takings”, by “persuasion, enticement, or inducement” “under the color of law”, creating a state of “servitude” Provisions in the “Act” require every individual to buy a product (Healthcare Insurance, except the select few that have immunity from the “Act”) under the penalty of law for which no judicial review is permitted. These are unconstitutional components similar to the “Jim Crow Laws”. Are you shocked yet?
Count 10. Violates Article 4, Section 2, and Amendment 14. Provisions in the “Act” grant special exemptions and waivers to select classes of citizens, based upon union affiliation, corporate employment, religious affiliation, and/or State residency. This unequal treatment precludes the right to judicial review and thus violates Amendment 5. The “Act” violates Amendment 1, the respecting one religion over another (to be addressed further in Count 11), the “establishment clause”. And did you know, homeowner, that a “Discriminatory Tax” now exists that selectively punishes homeowners in violation of Amendment 14, by denying “equal protection and treatment”? The “Act” turns over partial ownership of your home by taxation, by imposing a 3.8 percent fixed tax (illegal taking) on the gross amount of the sale of your residence after taxes in addition to a capital gains tax to raise the monies for unconstitutional “specific welfare” and also precludes judicial review.
Count 11. Violates: “Establishment Clause”, Amendment 1, interrelated with violations of Amend. 5 and 14. The “Act” grants “religious conscience exemptions” in a very specific unconstitutional manner. Preferential treatment is granted based upon membership or participation in selected establishment of religion (Islam)4 that does not apply to all religious groups violates neutrality. All other individual not a member of the favorite religion are subject to fines, and or additional punishment without any appeal or judicial recourse violating Amendment 5.
Count 12. Violations of Amendments 5 and 14, renders the judiciary irrelevant and also interconnects with violation of the Anti-Trust Laws. It is important first to address the language set forth in the “Act” “There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise, of [any various procedures described earlier. The seriousness of this violation and the relationship to the violation of the Anti-Trust Law, 15 U.S.C. 1 enjoins only anti-competition conduct “effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy”.
Count 13. Violates Title VII, “Civil Rights” Law, Amendment 14, and Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph1. Included are provisions allocating federal funds for student loans to be granted to “historically black and minority colleges” to the tune of 2.55 billion dollars. This violates “Equal treatment”. It is inarguable that granting monies based upon race or ethnicity is “reverse discrimination.” Further discrimination (taxation) exists in the form of a 10-percent tax on select persons for a service, not the business itself. This is yet another “capitation tax.” (See Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4: “No Capitation, or other direct,, Tax shall be laid, …” and Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1 “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the Citizens in several States”.)
The “Act” discriminates regarding the size of a business or corporation, and deliberately exempts all federal branches of government from the same healthcare mandates forced upon citizens. Thus it violates “equal protection and treatment” mandated by Amendment 14. It grants special benefits to select groups of citizens, and subsidizes all union retiree and community organizer health-care plans at the expense of the taxpayer. That is arguably an unconstitutional use of the taxpayers monies for “specific welfare”. It is also “unequal treatment” of the taxpayers of any State not granted these special immunities or financial assistance, and could violate Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 6. and Article 4, Section 2 Paragraph 1.
Count 14. Violation of Article 6, Section 3, the Oath5 of Office. When incorporated with the proven allegation above and below that the entire “Act” totally fails to comply with the U.S. Constitution, those that voted for this “Act” admittedly failed in their fiduciary duty to scrutinize the bill prior to passage in violation of their sworn oath.
Count 15. Amendment 10: No State has yet surrendered its sovereignty to the federal government. The “Act” usurps the contractual agreement between the States and the federal government, and effectively eviscerates the limits of power held by the federal government. The inherent sovereignty of the States specifically restricts the federal government’s power. Anything that compromises that restriction is inconsistent with the dual sovereignty system. This “Act” jeopardizes the integrity of our dual structure of government. The power to regulate interstate commerce does not subsume the power to dictate any financial commitment to health insurance coverage or other product. Congress’s exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause eliminates the total discretion of the State. This derogates the core Constitutional principle of federalism upon which this Nation was founded. It does so by the mere fact that this “Act” exceeds the vested powers that the Constitution grants, and violates Article 1, Section 8, and Amendment 10. The federal government has only those powers that the States of the Union ceded to the federal government via the Constitution and no others.
We the people must play a the vital role if we are to protect our God given rights derived from nature and nature’s God and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I humbly request every reader carefully contemplate the following:
“But what end is equivalent for a precedent so dangerous as that where the Constitution is disregarded by the Legislature, and that disregard is sanctioned by the judiciary? Where then, is the safety of the people, or freedom which the Constitution meant to secure? One precedent begets another, one breach will quickly be succeeded by another, and thus the giving way in the first instance to what seems to be the case of public convenience in facts State v. —–, Hayw. 28 N.C.1794
The Supreme Court’s failure to address the above Constitutional challenges should outrage every American. I pray that, after reading the above, each of you pass this on to everyone on your e-mail list, and forward it to the Editors of your papers. And most importantly, flood the Supreme Court in writing and by phone every day from now until March 26. Demand an explanation from Chief Justice Roberts, of why the Court failed in and refused to fulfill its sworn fiduciary duty and address the “We the People’s” Petition. Say that we expect a “recall and vacate” order to allow the “People” to be heard!
Once again, the “People” will take on anyone at an open public debate. According to a recent precedent: see, Bond v. U.S. a law “beyond the power of Congress,” for any reason, is “no law at all.” Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928).
US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402: “The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…”
1 Recently signed into law, National Defense Authorization Act, (S.1867) notwithstanding violates the “Posse Comitatus “Act authorizing the President to use Military force on American citizens, without State approval, retention of American citizens without judicial due process for an unlimited period and the transfer of Americans to overseas detention camps. The reason I bring this to this Courts attention, we see the continual erosion of rights by an administration gone wild. The “People” asked this Court to be cognizant of the fact that “H.R.3590” the so-called healthcare legislation creates a private Presidential Army that violates the Constitution see, paragraph 21 in Stalinist Russian fashion! It’s important that every American realize your habeas corpus rights have been suspended!
2 The Honorable Chief Judge Roger Vinson in his previous finding, see, Case 3:10-cv-00091, noting that Section 10907 of “H.R.3590” explicitly imposed taxes on indoor tanning salon on individuals as a “service” tax which is clearly a violation of the Constitution “capitation” provision.
3 The new Medical Device Excise Tax scheduled to begin in 2013 has already caused 1000 employees at Stryker Corp. will be losing their jobs as a direct result of a medical device fee included in Obama-care according to Reuters (Nov.1, 2011). AdavaMed, the Advanced Medical Technology Association estimates that 43,000 U.S. jobs would be lost as the Medical Device Excise Tax as companies move to more productive Nations.
4 If the exemption from the mandate to purchase “health Insurance” (regardless of the unconstitutionality of the “Act”) is upheld to those in the Islamic faith this Court will be setting a precedent that establishes Sharia law above Constitutional law. Such special privileges places are taking place every day, prayer rooms at Airports, stadiums, pray time allotted at schools, dress codes at schools, businesses and Corporations exempting Muslim’s from standard work procedure all unavailable to non-Muslims. The question exists are we an equal society or do we now have a privileged class?
5Marbury v. Madison, concerning the oath of Office. “…it’s apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that the instrument as a rule of government of the courts, as well as the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an a oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in the office and character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instrument , and the knowing instruments for violating what they swore to support. The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is the words: “I do solemnly swear, that I will administer justice, without respect to persons, and do equal right to the rich and poor; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as – according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution of the laws of the united states. Why does a judge swear top discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule of for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such a real state of things , this is worse than solemn –mockery. To prescribe, or take an oath, becomes equally a crime.”