The Marxist administration believed they won a victory, after the June 28 decision by the Supreme Court. Whether they know it or not, they won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, and staggering losses will follow. By Chief Justice John Roberts ruling with the liberal Marxists on the bench he inadvertently proved that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, HR3590 is unconstitutional.
Weeping may tarry for the night, But joy cometh in the morning. Psalm 30:5b (KJV)
As any (honest) jurist will acknowledge, the Constitution does not allow Congress or the Executive Branch to sign any “Act” of law not specifically enumerated by the Constitutional “contract” that each sovereign State entered into. In short, no authority exists under any circumstance to let this decision stand!
Purpura And Laster Vindicated
Since 2010 (see Purpura v Sibelius, 11-7275), my friend Don Laster and I argued in the federal courts that HR3590 is unconstitutional. It indisputably violates the Origination Clause, Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagreed with Roberts in their dissent.
[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.
They went on to say:
Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.
Of course! The Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House of Representatives,
the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.
How to Argue the Supreme Court Decision on Re-argument
The current Justices of the Supreme Court. Highlighted: Chief Justice John Roberts. Photo: SCOTUS; highlighting from CNAV.
I’ll make it as simple as possible, so even a fifth-grader can understand how to argue the Supreme Court decision on re-argument. That is if you don’t miss the deadline to notify the Court and the DOJ that you’re submitting a motion for re-argument. Much was missed in the original arguments by the National Federation of Independent Business, and the twenty-six States. Too bad they won’t allow me to re-argue this decision.
The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips, but the just shall come out of trouble. Proverbs 12:13 (ASV)
How did over twenty Attorneys General overlook this? Judge Roger Vinson, Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida, addressed the legislative history of the Act, HR3590. Both sides of the controversy asked him to. Vinson found that the bill originated in the US Senate. See, Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Service, –F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL285683 (ND) Fla. 2011. The House of Representatives were amending a Senate Bill, since it was found to have originated in the Senate.
The relevant Constitutional law, that I have quoted above, is unambiguous. And the Honorable Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito confirmed that unmistakably.
That is just one reason for re-argument. I’ll present others in another Article based on the Roberts Court’s decision. Inarguably this is a valid reason to overturn their ruling of June 28th on HR3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” It is unconstitutional.
Democrat’s Comitted Blatant Fraud
Let the public and the Supreme Court take notice. The Democrat Congress, with fraudulent intent, met behind closed doors. They did this after Scott Brown (R-MA) joined the Senate to replace Senator (The Swimmer) Edward M. Kennedy, deceased. They had a problem: to stop a Republican filibuster of any Bill that might come out of conference. Realizing the “Act” was dead in the water, and having no time to rewrite the Bill in the House of Representatives, they took an unrelated House Bill “HR 3590”, the “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” They extracted the entire contents of said legislation, and replaced it with the Senate’s original Bill “America’s Healthy Future Act” (S.1796) a precursor to the “Act,” to give the appearance of Constitutional legality in passage of the “Act.”
The corrupt Democrat leadership then with ‘fraudulent intent’ substituted the original name “Service Members Ownership Tax Act of 2009” HR3590 with the name “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to acquire a “House Designation Number” by surreptitious means.
By law, as confirmed by the dissenting Judges [see quote above]. only the House of Representatives may originate a revenue raising “Act.” The House accepted the Senate bill unlawfully, for expediency, independent of any written House Bill.
So: will any Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, that originally rule in favor of this “Act” that violates the Constitution, now be an accessory to a criminal act? Especially since you have now been duly informed? The law is abundantly clear: if informed of a crime, you must act to correct that crime or you can be held liable for aiding and abetting and in a conspiracy. Could this fall under a RICO heading? Just asking.
“We the People” ask this Court to extend their session, and immediately set a special date within the next thirty-five days for re-argument. Prayerfully we are still a Republic that adheres to rule of law, and not regressed to a third world banana republic.
We The People
“We the People” respectfully request, though it is unprecedented, that the Petitioner Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster be allowed to participate in re-argument representing “We the People” before this Supreme Court. This Court ignored every Constitutional challenge present in request for Certiorari without explanation. The lower courts refused to address a single Constitutional issue presented in the Petition of Purpura v. Sibelius, 11-7275 known as the “We the People’s” Petition, the most comprehensive action against Obama-care in the United States that contained 19-violations of the Constitution and statutory laws. I remind the Court, the Justice Department forfeited no less than 3-times, the District and Circuit Court denied proper due process, blatantly violated proper judicial procedure and ignored Federal statutes.
A Parting Note
Since 2010, Petitioners Purpura and Laster have openly challenged any and all comers, law professors, judges, and attorneys to an open public debated to try to disprove any Constitutional challenge presented in Purpura v. Sibelius. We have had not a single taker . The reason is simple. No argument exists to disprove a single challenge. We proved that the entire “Act” is unconstitutional.