Guest Columns
Wanted: a Miracle on 34th Street
For Immediate Release
The Supreme Court has docketed the case of Purpura v. Sebelius as docket number 11-7275. This case can restore the Constitution to its original intent. Unlike the other cases this case identifies 19 specific violations of the US Constitution by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and how the harm of each violation affects each and every person specifically. Real, imminent harm that will occur and is occurring.
How the health care reform bill violates the Constitution
The problem with all the other cases related to the health care law is that they address only some violations. Even then many of the arguments do not fully address the violations involved.
The favorite 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 fails to address the side effects of the Individual Mandate. For instance, if the Government can order someone to buy a product, what else can it order? 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 need do is wait until they get sick and then apply?
But what about all of the other provisions in the law to ensure that people obey the Individual Mandate? 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. Only recently HHS started to implement the mandate to collect medical records on everyone. Amendment 4 states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated.
So how can any 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. These violations 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 not to 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 over reaching dictates of the faceless bureaucrat.
A motion to expedite in Purpura v. Sebelius
Nicholas E. Purpura. Photo: self.
The Petitioners submitted a Motion to Expedite for Extraordinary Circumstance as allowed by Supreme Court Rule 21. Surely, following the Court’s 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 we understand that it could not 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 the case.
What the Court can do
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, the Court must address each Constitutional challenge submitted by Purpura v. Sebelius to set a precedent to protect the Petitioners and all Americans against the violations contained in the law and Congress’ 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 V)
- Allows real warrantless searches (Amendment IV)
- Creates excessive fines (Amendment VIII)
- Gives special privileges to religious sects (Amendment I)
- Imposes unequal treatment (Amendment XIV), and
- Violate 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 of 34th Street (1947)”. Respectfully ask the Supreme Court to address the “We the People’s” case.
See also
- Earlier press release (November 3, 2011)
- The health care reform bill is hazardous to your health
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
-
Civilization4 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Clergy5 days agoThe Wrath Of God Abides Upon The Children Of Disobedience: What Are You Feeding Upon?
-
Civilization2 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization3 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Executive1 day agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization20 hours agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization2 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
This attack of our Constitution is really just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds if not thousands of laws, orders, etc. that violate your inalienable rights, freedoms and property and are so unconstitutional.
If we returned to the original, organic Constitution, it would take a century to reverse all the unconstitutional crap.
We need a RON PAUL to be elected president to use the executive branch to nullify this stuff. Your Congress is too beholden to the oligarchy of banksters and big corporate monopolies that rule your representatives with their special interest bribes to care for ‘we the people’.
Eugene, you are partially correct. We must not only elect Ron Paul, we must fire every single incumbent in Congress or he will be stopped at every turn.
link to kickthemallout.com
I have one problem only with Dr. Paul, and the problem is insurmountable—though one can work around it. Dr. Paul seems to think that no external threats need exist, that a policy of withdrawal of all military forces from overseas would make all such threats vanish, and that no individual, group or government has any inherent reason to make something called the United States disappear from the world.
In contrast, I read the Koran and the Hadiths. They give every reason why no Muslim, who thoroughly understands these foundational documents and stands by everything that those documents hold, can tolerate the continued existence of something called “The United States of America.” This would hold whether the United States “intervened in the affairs of others,” or not. I also seek to avoid bringing the Genesis 12:3 curse on the country’s head.
The obvious work-around is letting all Americans arm themselves, and letting transport carriers have full responsibility for the safety of their passengers and freight. That includes full authority to accept or reject any passenger or freight item, and declaring that the word of the captain of any ship or airliner is law on board, especially in international waters or skies.
Less obvious would be to allow any US citizen or lawful resident to take up arms on the behalf of any foreign power with whom the United States has an appropriate treaty. I assume that Dr. Paul wants to withdraw from, or dissolve, the North Atlantic Treaty (“the Atlantic Pact”). This would be a replacement for that. (Some might think that’s wild, but one cannot ever examine the proposals of a Dr. Ron Paul in a vacuum.)
With regard to everything else you mentioned: I for one would love to see a House of Representatives having a two-thirds preponderance of Dr. Pauls. They then could expel the remaining third and thus “clean House” quite thoroughly.
Purpura v. Sebelius has met its end.
link to supremecourt.gov
No. 11-7275
Title:
Nicholas E. Purpura, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docketed: November 9, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-2303)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2011)
Nov 25 2011 Request for recusal received from petitioner
Dec 9 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 15 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2012.
Jan 9 2012 Petition DENIED.
News flash, morons. Nothing about Obama’s parentage has any bearing on the eligibility requirements in the Constitution. The Constitution mentions nothing about parents. Even if your other arguments were valid, which they are not, no one would be able to take you seriously due to the Birther nonsense.
But the other arguments are almost as stupid. Particularly the claim that the health care reform law “violates the Posse Comitatus Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Law, HIPAA, and the Anti-Trust Laws.” It is impossible for an act of Congress to violate a previous act of Congress. In the event of a conflict between two acts of Congress (something that doesn’t actually exist here, no matter how much you claim it does), the newer act automatically repeals the older one. If you don’t even know that, it’s a safe bet the rest of your legal arguments are nonsense.
And sure enough, they are. The 5th Amendment is not violated by adding a tax penalty for refusal to buy health insurance. That’s well within Congress’s taxation power. And removing certain cases from the court’s ability to review is also within Congress’s power; the Constitution specifically gives Congress the ability to define appellate courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. Likewise, your claim of 1st Amendment violation is nonsense, because the health care law does not give religious groups special treatment. Nor does simply claiming that the minor tax penalty it can impose is somehow an “excessive fine” make it so. Likewise, you’ve done nothing to demonstrate “unequal treatment” and it does not impose warrantless searches. In short, the entirety of your “case” is without merit.
You’re suggesting that American law has an abrogation principle, that law more recently made automatically revokes, rescinds, repeals, and otherwise abrogates other law with which it conflicts, whether the new bill makes a specific and explicit revocation, rescission, repeal, or similar abrogation, or not. My sources and I maintain that this is not true. What happens is that two laws are in conflict, and man can get into serious trouble if, by obeying one, ha violates the other.
Excuse it however you like. But that bill makes a mockery of the Constitution.
You’re right, Mr. Hurlbut. That’s precisely what I’m saying. For over 200 years, it’s been a basic legislative principle that the current Congress cannot have its actions in passing a law limited by a previous Congress. The only thing that can permanently bind Congress is the Constitution itself, since it’s the source of all of Congress’s authority.
Still, abrogation must be explicit, never implicit. That is why any bill that changes the law has such language as “such-a-section is amended to read,” “such-a-section is stricken,” etc. I’ve read HR 3590. I found no such language as regards the Posse Comitatus Act or the relevant antitrust law.
It’s tough to find informed people on this theme, but you seem like you understand what you�re talking about! Thank you