IS THE SUPREME COURT GUILTY OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION?
by Nicholas E. Purpura, Chaplain, (The Eagle), ©2017
(Nov. 22, 2017) — [Editor’s Note: Please see Part 1 of this series here.]
When our nation’s highest Court can void any legal reasoning, logic, or precedent, can reject a “Writ for Certiorari” that is based upon and supported by this same Court’s prior en banc (9-0) precedent related to the validity of de facto Administrative law held to be unconstitutional, one has to ask; was this “Intentional Negligence” or “selective enforcement”?
Was the refusal to address blatant unconstitutional behavior of New Jersey’s public officials in the matter of Purpura v. Gov. Christie, et al., Docket 17-280, based upon a political ideology or because the Defendants were the political powerful defendants?
“We the People” for far too long have been denied consistency and clarification suffering under conflicting decisions on the right to “bear arms.” Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is unambiguous: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in several States.” Do we not deserve finality once and for all; that is, if we are still a Republic governed by law?
The question before the Court is simple: By what legal authority can any State abrogate federal law it doesn’t agree with through an unconstitutional legislative process under the “color of law” because it is related to an Amendment that they wish to ignore?
This question screams for an answer. What justification exists for the Supreme Court of the United States to ignore the lower Courts under their jurisdiction to refuse to consider the accumulated mass of prior precedent as well as faithfully conforming to the ‘Code of Statutory Construction,’ void any rational articulation of reasoning for the violations of the Constitution, to be considered a fair and just resolution, and still refuse to address even the lower Courts’ refusal to protect the rights of the people?
The honorable Justices of this Supreme Court are obligated by “affirmed oath” before GOD to “take care” that the ‘laws of the land’ be faithfully executed. [At this time Petitioner firmly believes the Justices never received the original Petition.]
Write and request that the Supreme Court grant a “Rehearing” of Purpura v. Christie et al., Docket 17-280. (Let your letters flood the Supreme Court – let it be our “Miracle on 1st Street” so that our civil right can be restored.
SUPREME COURT of the United States
1 First Street N.E.
Washington DC, 20543
To deny adjudication is to condone the use of unfettered power to undermine the Constitution with “deliberate indifference.” Constitutional challenges based upon law and precedent, regardless of whether presented by a “favored” law firm or by a pro se, deserve adjudication as guaranteed under the law.
It is irrefutable that any one of the three arguments on its own demonstrates the unconstitutional behavior of the Defendants that merits the relief requested.
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.