A Court Without Shame: The Supreme Court Betrays the Constitution (Part 1)

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Many still believe we are living in a Constitutional Republic governed by the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, America is at a crossroads in which the freedoms we once enjoyed and are protected by our Constitution are rapidly eroding.

I write this article not as a disgruntled litigant, but as an American that fears and trembles for the course his country has taken. The Constitution was once the bulwark of our freedoms and protections. Now a government filled with tyrants in black robes has morphed it into something that our Founders would barely recognize.. The Courts, that exist to check and balance our other two branches of government, willingly rubber-stamp legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. One can only guess their motives, but their behavior violates their oath of office to protect and uphold the Constitution of these United States. It is a sacred oath that the Framers created to protect our Rule of Law from despots and usurpers.

We now live under a federal judiciary that no longer seems concerned about protecting our Constitution, but means to reinterpret it to accommodate their ideologies. These men and women believe that the state is the giver of rights and they have been known to quote international law as a guiding principle. . They also believe that the once foundation of our republic, the Constitution, is archaic and no longer necessary or timely.

The saga begins

The saga I will be writing about began after Congress passed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”(“The Act”). That Act is anything but a health-care piece of legislation and is not “affordable” by any stretch of the imagination.. I intend to argue that this “Act” grants total government control over the American people and lays the foundation for a police state.

When the Act passed in a most unusual way, patriots throughout our nation turned to our Courts in protest. This article starts with the most comprehensive Petition brought by “We the People” against this egregiously unconstitutional legislative act: Purpura v. Sebelius, Case No. 11-7275.

The series of constitutional assaults climaxed on February 21st when the U.S. Supreme Court without explanation denied re-argument in the matter of Purpura v. Sebelius, and thus denied us the right to take part at oral argument to be held on March 26-28, 2012 on the constitutionality of the Health-care “Act” known as ObamaCare.

The District Court

The Fisher Federal Building, home of the NJ District Court, first step toward the Supreme Court

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building, Trenton, NJ. Photo: US Department of Justice

This judicial sham began in the District Court (Trenton) New Jersey before Judge Freda L. Wolfson. Not only did Judge Wolfson completely disregard the Federal Rules of Procedure, but she also denied us “due process.”

Unbelievable as it sounds, I believe proof abounds that this jurist openly connived with the defendants, and aided and abetted the “obstruction of justice.” She had gone so far as to:

  1. Rule on issues not properly before the court,

  2. Intentionally ignore evidence, fact, and law, and

  3. Disregard three consecutive forfeitures by the Department of Justice.

Wolfson is a prize example of why judicial reform is necessary, and lifetime appointments are unacceptable.

The Third Circuit

James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, Philadelphia, PA, home of the Third Circuit, one step below the Supreme Court

The James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, Philadelphia, PA, home of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. More than one health care reform bill case is on appeal here. Photo: US Department of Justice

We next had to make an appeal that should never have been necessary. We submitted our appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This court, as the District Court had done earlier, ignored their own rules of procedure, overlooked evidence, and denied “due process”.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did no better. They violated the law openly and ignored federal rules of procedure, evidence, and any standard of proof.

Going forward, two judges, Joseph A. Greenway and Thomas I. Vanaskie, authored two decisions and orders, and did so without judicial authority. They, ignoring the Judicial Conduct Code and the United States Code, see 28 USC Section 455. The man currently occupying the White House appointed these two men. By law, on account of the “People’s” Count 6, they were restricted from taking part in any proceeding concerning this matter. Why? Because they had a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The honorable and expected thing for them to do was to recuse themselves.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court, with several March for Life participants in the foreground. Photo: CNAV files

Thereafter, “We the people” (Petitioners) were left with one last hope for justice. Surely the Supreme Court of the United States would never allow lower courts to usurp the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and “due process.” The men and women who make up this Court swore an oath to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people guaranteed by the Constitution. This was our third branch of government that the Founders created to make sure the law of the land would be upheld. And we had great hopes that this Court would not fail us and would not fail the American people.

Once again the issue arose of Justices who ought to recuse themselves, but didn’t. Two of the Justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, owe their appointments to Mr. Obama.. And, by law, their financial interest in the outcome meant that they must recuse themselves. Surely they would honor the law and . obey the Judicial Conduct Code and U.S. Code. We were sadly mistaken.

On January 9, 2012 “The People” received notice that the Court had denied their “Writ of Certiorari” without explanation. True, the Court need not explain their decision. But in this case a question of law arises: did Sotomayor and Kagan take part, and in so doing, violate the law?

The people,’” still believing in our system of justice, submitted a motion for re-argument to “recall and vacate” based upon many issues that the Court had overlooked. The most important of these is whether or not Sotomayor or Kagan took part in the decision-making process. Clearly if they did, they violated the law and the Court would be required to rehear without their participation.

As we stated above on February 21st , we once again received a notice without explanation: “The petition for rehearing is denied”. I called the Court and asked if Sotomayor or Kagan participated. The answer was: “It was denied; we’re not required to tell you anything.” Keep in mind that both these two jurists (one an affirmative action activist and member of La Raza, the other a direct advocate for the legislation), are going to sit in judgment on the constitutionality of the Health-care legislation. God help the United States. By refusing to obey the United States Code, these two judges show that they are unqualified and have little or no respect for our laws. Sadly the other justices, will hear oral argument based upon inadequate and limited briefings on the most dangerous piece of legislation ever written by Congress.

Consequences

Contemplate this for a moment. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution says:

The judicial powers shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,…”

Now I ask what all Americans should be asking: if the “We the People” brief Case No. 11-7275 contained 19 well-supported violations of the United States Constitution and 4 statutory laws, how does the Supreme Court protect the freedom and rights of the American people by refusing to address these constitutional challenges without explanation? And, by that refusal, does not this Court leave the American people without recourse?

Based on the history of the “People’s Case” it is hard to believe that, oral argument by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on the “individual mandate,” will receive a higher degree of justice. Unfortunately, Mr. Cuccinelli, like many of his counterparts, thoroughly failed to read the entire “Act.” By failing to do so, he ignored the true dangers in the legislation that totally shreds the United States Constitution.

How in God’s name could this Court in good conscience ignore 19 violations of the Constitution? Even should the Court find the individual mandate unconstitutional, how can they fail to understand that the remaining provisions violate Article 1, 2, 4, and 6, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16? Let’s not forget that it violates the “Posse Comitatus” Act, “Anti-Trust” Provisions, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act” and lastly, “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

Over the last two years, we put forth an open challenge to every University and College Professor of Law, or any group of left-wing attorneys, to hold a mock trial or open debate to prove the allegation put forth by the “We the People’s” petitioners in our brief are incorrect. Not a single taker has stepped forward.

Do the legal eagles and the men and women in black robes fear those in the White House; do they not understand our Constitution; do they believe it is archaic and not suitable for 21st century living; or do they prefer international law to our Constitutional Republic? Whatever their motives, they have failed to honor their oath of office and they have failed to check and balance the other two branches of government. Unfortunately, the American people are suffering the repercussions of their inadequacies.

To be continued…

Related:

12 Responses to A Court Without Shame: The Supreme Court Betrays the Constitution (Part 1)

  1. Jon says:

    Ah, such a superb piece of self-parody, well done! Sure to entertain many other readers.

  2. Ian Lister says:

    Occam’s razor asks which is more likely: that nine justices who have spent a lifetime in the legal profession, sitting on a court with a 5-4 conservative bias, “violate[d] their oath of office”, or that you don’t know what the constitution means?

    It’s amazing how when the right gets its way (Citizens United, for instance, or Bush v. Gore) the Supreme Court is a noble institution defending the US against liberalism, but now this suit fails the laugh test, they’re “tyrants in black robes”.

    You lost because your lawsuit is a mish-mash of every rightwing, anti-Obama idea currently around. You lost because none of those ideas is valid. You lost because the Supreme Court doesn’t want to waste its precious time on such idiocy. It’s time you stopped whining and moved on.

  3. JamesF says:

    I don’t want to be offensive or insensitive to you, but did you ever stop and consider that you don’t write good briefs? The Supreme Court is going to hear an number of cases on the Obamacare act and they probably want to restrict themselves only to those that have a good chance of succeeding, both in terms of having the funding available to see the case through but also in terms of how well argued the case is.

    Also there is the matter of judicial restraint. Now I know that you see Obama’s ineligibility as central to the case, but if the SC are going to sit down and rule on the constitutionality of the health care act, they are not going to want to be forced to rule on issues outside that. From what I have read as I have never done this before, when petitioning the SC it is important to narrow the focus of the court as much as possible. They don’t want to be have to be making rulings broader than necessary and tend to want to cross bridges as they come.

    Also you seem slightly confused when you say that the this act violates previous acts. If congress passes new legislation than that supersedes the older legislation. It is only if congress passes acts that violates the constitution or supreme court rulings there is a problem.

    I would advise you to redraft your petition and focus it as much as possible on the healthcare act and constitutional violations only. Good luck in the future.

  4. M. Aire says:

    As a non-American it is very amusing for me to see your truly un-American ideology rot on the vine.

    “… has morphed it into something that our Founders would barely recognize.”

    Only an ignorant person would claim to know what long-dead government officials would think of their country in the future. Strange I only ever hear that claim from conservatives. They’d probably be more worried about demonic flying machines and having to digest processed food anyway.

    “They also believe that the once foundation of our republic, the Constitution, is archaic and no longer necessary or timely.” [CITATION NEEDED]

    “I believe proof abounds that this jurist openly connived with the defendants”

    Okay, provide it then.

    “Overlooked evidence, and denied “due process”.”

    There is a fundamental difference between weighing different pieces of evidence against each other and “overlooking” evidence entirely. Again, you will have to provide proof that material presented was, either willfully or accidentally, not viewed by the judge.

    “They, ignoring the Judicial Conduct Code and the United States Code, see 28 USC Section 455.”

    That section protects against the possibility of bias, with quite specific examples of such bias (familial relation, financial.) It does not mean “They are liberal” or whatever else you seem to think. As for financial, that: “means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party…” Being appointed by Obama hardly qualifies, by your logic the fact that Obama’s policy is being put to the test means that anyone who supports the president in the first place has an ILLEGAL conflict of interest.

    “And we had great hopes that this Court would not fail us and would not fail the American people.”

    The majority of the American people disagree with you or are indifferent to the matter.

    “Two of the Justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, owe their appointments to Mr. Obama.. And, by law, their financial interest in the outcome meant that they must recuse themselves.”

    Again you seem to be equating an appointment by a democratic President with financial interest. Please provide stronger proof of bias.

    “Keep in mind that both these two jurists (one an affirmative action activist and member of La Raza, the other a direct advocate for the legislation), are going to sit in judgment on the constitutionality of the Health-care legislation.”

    I don’t see how having a pre-determined opinion on the matter (define “advocate”) is an illegally-motivated bias. Every judge has opinions, they are adults and they read the newspaper. They are required to put those opinions aside for the sake of argument and process, but if their ultimate judgment matches that original opinion it hardly qualifies as a violation.

    “And, by that refusal, does not this Court leave the American people without recourse?”

    That’s why you have a supreme court in the first place, isn’t it? To settle this kind of argument once and for all? I’m sure if you could take the case to God Almighty you would, but he probably won’t hear it.

    “Mr. Cuccinelli, like many of his counterparts, thoroughly failed to read the entire “Act.”

    Says who? And how exactly can someone “thoroughly” not do something?

    “Over the last two years, we put forth an open challenge to every University and College Professor of Law, or any group of left-wing attorneys, to hold a mock trial or open debate to prove the allegation put forth by the “We the People’s” petitioners in our brief are incorrect. Not a single taker has stepped forward.”

    This is a classic conservative leap of logic: “PROVE THAT I’M WRONG!” Well, you can’t prove a negative and anyway the burden of proof is on you, the bringer of the argument. That’s a pretty basic principle of law. And even if you won your childish mock trial, what then? You go home and slap yourself on the back?

  5. Bill says:

    The Supreme Court case that established the supremacy of the Supreme Court in deciding what the Constitutional said was Marbury v. Madison. It was over a spat with two founding fathers, John Adams and James Madison, and presided over by other founding fathers, including John Marshall.

    You talk as if the founding fathers were a monolithic group, but immediately they disagreed on what was Constitutional. And it was decided that the Supreme Court is the decider of what the Constitution says and means, not you, a disgruntled litigant without standing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

  6. egarners says:

    The Constitution is NOT that difficult to read and understand. If you look to the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers for reinforcement of their intentions, it becomes a no brainer.

    The actions of all branches of government are the result of the false premises of the infinitesimal few that force their irrational philosophy on us by the simple use of monetary control and dependency of the masses on the corporate monopolies over goods and services.

    Since they control education, the news, money, governments, courts, ad-nausea, they tighten the noose of perpetual debt slavery on the masses and force their evil will, driven by greed and lust for power.

    They want it all and long as we sleep and allow our representatives to violate their oath to obey and protect the Constitution, they WILL get it all at the expense of our slavery to them.

    Don’t worry about the 1% that are being blamed for the curse on the 99%. It is the 0.00001% that pull all the strings to the detriment of mankind.

    The tenets of our Constitution were to limit the size, reach and power of government to best protect the inalienable rights, freedom and property of the INDIVIDUAL. You can’t herd freemen, and that is why they are attacking that fabulous blueprint of checks and balances. They want sheeple.

  7. Lt Col David Earl-Graef says:

    First let me thank you for your hard work. I too have been perplexed as you may see by my open letters to Roberts on this subject. The most reasonable explanation I can come up with is that they may recognize the legal arguments will be lost on almost all Americans and should they remove Obama it will cause massive social unrest. Many in reality will see this as a racist attack on the “president” based on some “old Law” and and in the case of Minor vs Happ regarding voting rights for women. They will not get it. They are looking for a “political” solution. They are in fact cowards. We know Obama is a fraud and a criminal and when shown people can understand. Like Watergate.

    This is not to say we should do as they do and abandon defending our constitution every chance we have. This just tries to explain their actions short of absolute corruption which still remains a possibility.

    • Slock says:

      Please stop using Minor v Happ as a definition of a natural born citizen. Here is the text that the Birthers use from Minor v Happ.

      “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”.

      This is about as un-definition-like as I could imagine, talking about some authorities saying one thing and others saying something else, about doubts, and the non-necessity of deciding certain situations. In the Minor case, it was only necessary for the court to determine the citizenship of Virginia Minor, and that’s as far as they went. They did not define “natural born citizen”.

      If Minor is not providing a definition (and I have no doubt that it is not), Birthers trying to use it as a definition is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
      It’s like saying:

      • The people who own 100,000 share of GE are very rich.
      • Warren Buffett does not own 100,000 shares of GE; therefore he is not very rich.

      Of course, normal people already understand this and Birthers probably never will.

  8. Richard says:

    Sorry, Slock, but you just contradicted yourself (funny how that happens when you’re trying to defend Obama, seems to be rather common these days). Quoting you: “it was NEVER DOUBTED that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners….” Gee, sounds like a definition of “natural-born citizen” to me…..wouldn’t you agree? Because the Constitution was written in the 1700s, you have to go back to the 1700s and how terms were defined in order to understand the true intent of the Founders, and their definition of “natural-born citizen” is one of those things you have to understand in their terms. They included the “natural-born citizen” language in the qualifications for President because they wanted NO DOUBTS about the citizenship of anyone who would lead this country because it was then (and still is now) one of the most unique nations ever assembled and in order to lead it effectively you had to have lived your life in it and experienced it to fully understand what we’re about.

  9. […] Court without shame, Parts One and […]

  10. […] A Supreme Court without shame, Part 1 […]

  11. […] A Supreme Court without shame, Part 1 […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.