Constitutional Justification and Responsibility for Defunding Unconstitutional Structure and Restoring the Constitutional Rule of Law to the Republic of the United States of America



Download 49.21 Kb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size49.21 Kb.
Constitutional Justification and Responsibility

for Defunding Unconstitutional Structure

and Restoring the Constitutional Rule of Law

to the Republic of the United States of America
Copyright Will Ghormley 2013
The United States of America is a Republic, (the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4), wherein the rights of Individual Citizens are enshrined and codified in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Embedding the Rights of Individual Citizens in the foundational documentation of our nation’s Supreme Law of the Land insures Individual Citizen’s Rights cannot be infringed upon without also assaulting and nullifying our nation’s Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution. Any agency and/or agent who thusly transgresses the Supreme Law of the Land to infringe upon Individual Citizen’s rights, puts themselves at enmity with the Constitution, and operates outside of our Nation’s Rule of Law.
Inasmuch as the Constitution represents the foundation and the expressed Rule of Law governing the conduct of our Republic form of government and our elected representatives, and inasmuch as the accumulated actions of governmental agencies, agents and/or elected representatives, as a whole, are no longer constrained by our Republic’s Constitutional Rule of Law, it is the right, it is the duty, of every Citizen to take up the defense of our Constitution and the Rule of Law which governs and protects our Citizens, our Nation, and our Society.
Inasmuch as the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, any statutes or treaties not in compliance with the Constitution are at enmity with the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America. As such, statutes and treaties at enmity with the Constitution do not represent the Rule of Law, are unconstitutional and legally unenforceable. It is the right, it is the duty, of every Citizen to do everything within their power to defend the Constitution against these unconstitutional statutes and treaties at enmity with the Constitution and Rule of Law.
Governmental agencies and/or agents seeking to enforce statutes and treaties at enmity with the Constitution, subsequently self-identify themselves as enemies of the Constitution through their actions. Citizen of the Republic of the United States of America have the right, the duty, the Civic responsibility to defend the Constitution against all governmental agencies and/or agents thus self- identified by their actions as enemies of the Constitution.
The Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, sets forth the standard by which actions are deemed treasonous. The Constitutional statute defining treason is as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and comfort.
Inasmuch as governmental agencies and/or agents have self-identified themselves as enemies of the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of American by their unconstitutional and lawless actions, it is an act of treason for any American Citizen to provide these governmental agencies and/or agents with aid or comfort. For a Citizen to provide financial support for governmental agencies and/or agents who are enemies of the Constitution is an act of treason. To willingly submit to taxation in support of governmental agencies and/or agents who are enemies of the Constitution, is an act of treason as defined by the Constitution.
In the case for moral and legal support for withdrawing aid to governmental agencies and/or agents which are enemies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Founders and Architects of our Nation and our Constitution, and Supreme Court Opinions will be brought to evidence to testify on Citizens’ behalf. The following legal qualification and justifications for this legal action are based on our Nation’s Supreme Law of the Land as established by the Constitution, and remain our Nation’s Rule of Law, unconstitutional statutes notwithstanding.
The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Declaration of Independence as our First supporting documented evidence.
Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future Security.
Beginning in earnest with the statutes enacted by the 63rd Congress of the United States in 1913 and signed as statutes by President Wilson, governmental agencies and/or agents, in a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same objective, evidence a design to reduce the Citizens of the Republic of the United States to absolute despotism, encroaching upon the Unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, of Citizens of the Republic of the United States. This has culminated in the Affordable Care Act passed by the 111th Congress and signed as a statute by the President March 23, 2010. With this single statute, the 111th Congress and the President attempt to unlawfully deprive Citizens of their Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:
To LIFE: Through the act of being alive within the borders and jurisdiction of the Republic of the United States of America, all Citizens or their guardians are deprived of sovereignty and autonomy over their own lives through forced purchasing of a good or service or being subject to penalty for non-compliance to the forced purchase of a good or service. The only recourse for a legally-born Citizen to avoid the loss of sovereignty and autonomy over their lives through forced purchasing of a good or service or penalty for non-compliance, is to receive a waiver from the government, (see Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection of the laws), or to die.
To LIBERTY: The Affordable Care Act denies Citizens the ability to exercise their own autonomy, judgment, and freedom in deciding whether or not to purchase a good or service of their own volition. This is accomplished through the forced purchasing of health insurance or the penalty for non-compliance as prescribed by the Affordable Care Act.
To the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS: In that The Affordable Care Act deprives average Citizens of their ability to determine what course of action best insures their personal pursuit of happiness, self-interest, wellbeing, and safeguards, through forced purchase of a good or service, or face penalty for non-compliance under the Affordable Care Act. Said Act is in violation of Citizens’ Unalienable Right to the Pursuit of Happiness. In penning the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s phraseology of “pursuit of happiness” springs from Philosopher John Locke’s 1690 essay, Concerning Human Understanding.
The necessity of pursuing happiness, the foundation of liberty(:)…so the care of ourselves,…is the necessary foundation of our liberty…The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good,…the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance…till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness:”
Over the course of the last 100 years, government agencies and/or agents have been working at enmity with the Constitution, incrementally infringing on Americans’ freedoms, working towards the goal of absolute Despotism. In the Affordable Care Act, governmental agencies and/or agents have effectively reduced American Citizens under Absolute Despotism with unconstitutional statutes eliminating Citizens’ most basic Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Second supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The “Supremacy Clause Doctrine” is often unconstitutionally applied by courts to justify altering or imposing statutes in a subversion of the Separation of Powers that establishes the Legislature as the sole origin of Law in the Republic of the United States, (The Constitution, Article 1, Section 1). This unconstitutional application of the “Supremacy Clause Doctrine” is at enmity with the Constitution, Article 1, Section 1; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; and Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, outlining the Constitutional Separation of Powers that are the Supreme Law of the Land.
The “Supremacy Clause Doctrine” erroneously assigns the “Laws of the United States” and “Treaties” the same Legal Standing as the Constitution, and misidentifies them as part of the structural “Supreme Law of the Land”. However, the Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2, carefully includes language excluding this broad misrepresentation of what constitutes the “Supreme Law of the Land”.
The language subjecting all “Laws of the United States” to compliance with the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land is the phrase, “and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof:” “Pursuance” means: the act of pursuing; especially: a carrying out of or putting into effect of. By identifying “This Constitution” as the existing legal structure all laws must pursue, Clause 2 instructs that all laws of the United States which shall be made must be subservient to the Supreme Law of the Land as enumerated by the Constitution; pursuing, carrying out, or putting into effect, the Powers and Limitations of government as established in the Constitution. ANY statute not complying with the expressed Powers or Limitations established as the Supreme Law of the Land in the Constitution are not laws at all, but at enmity with the Constitution.
Likewise, any “Treaties” entered into must comply with, and be subject to, the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Only those “Treaties” that are made under the authority of, and in compliance with, the United States Constitution, are valid. Any “Treaties” not subject to the Authority of the Constitution are at enmity with the Constitution and are unenforceable. In summation; only laws and treaties that are subject to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and work to carry out or put into effect the Powers and Limitations established by the Constitution, represent Constitutional authority, are encoded as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Furthermore, Clause 2 binds all Judges in every State to subservience to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. The phrase “to the contrary notwithstanding”, means the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land shall stand, regardless of what any State Constitution, statutes, or legal rulings to the contrary may say. All Judges who cast-off the restraints of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land are at enmity with the Constitution, and constitute self-identified enemies of the Constitution by their lawless actions.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Third supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Article 3, Section 1

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…
Judges can only legitimately hold their offices during good behavior. A Judge’s authority in office and Constitutional authority to hold office, are terminated with bad behavior. As seen in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2, all Judges are bound to submit to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. To abrogate their judicial responsibility to the Constitution in favor of any other consideration is for the Judge to put themselves at enmity with the Constitution. To be an enemy of the Constitution and render judgments and presume to create statutes contrary to the Constitution constitutes bad behavior. Judicial rulings issued at enmity to the Constitution in the process of exhibiting bad behavior are not imbued with, pursue, nor carry the Authority of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Fourth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Citizens of the Republic of the United States retain all human rights not enumerated to be governed by Federal or State law in the Constitution. Neither the Federal nor State governments have any enumerated Constitutional authority or power to force individuals to purchase any product. Any agencies and/or agents infringing on these Constitutionally protected Rights are at enmity with the Constitution.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Fifth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As we see in Constitutional Amendments 9 & 10, the government’s authority over issues not specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution are restricted from the Federal Government, and remain under the authority of the States respectively, or to the people specifically. The term “reserved” means set aside for the particular purpose or individual. As a legally binding term, the Tenth Amendment means the Federal Government cannot go beyond its enumerated powers and infringe upon those rights reserved in safekeeping for States and Citizens, and against use by the Federal Government. Any agency and/or agent attempting to infringe upon these Constitutionally protected Rights is at enmity with the Constitution.
There is NO enumerated power for the Federal or State Governments to force individuals to purchase any goods or service. Quite simply, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant that power to the Federal or State Governments, they have no right, power, or authority over that venue. For the 237 year history of our nation, the Federal Government has never discovered the Constitutional Authority to presume to force individual Citizens to purchase goods or services, or face penalty for not doing so. Unconstitutional statutes have been enacted infringing upon the Rights and Liberties of Citizens and this cannot be denied. Yet, the Autonomy, the Rights, and Liberties of American Citizens has absolutely been infringed upon with the Affordable Care Act. When the 111th Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, they acted beyond their Constitutional limitations and illegally infringed upon the Rights reserved to the People.
This is clearly unconstitutional. Inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act is not pursuant of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act is directly at enmity with Citizen’s Constitutionally guaranteed and unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable statute.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Sixth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
As we have seen in The Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2, all statutes and treaties must be subject to the Constitution to be lawful. There is NO Authority granted to any branch of the government for subverting the Constitution. Any attempts to legislatively or judiciously subvert the Constitution evinces an enmity towards our Constitutional Rule of Law.
The Legislative Branch, in passing the Affordable Care Act, stepped outside of their Constitutional limitations with a statute infringing upon and eliminating Citizen’s Constitutionally guaranteed Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Affordable Care Act does not pursue nor put into place the principles of the Constitution but rather abridges Citizen’s Rights. Therefore, the Affordable Care Act does not constitute law, but rather illustrated an unconstitutional assault on the Rule of Law.
In that the Affordable Care Act, in its drafting and implementation, does not accomplish “Equity” for all Citizens, the Affordable Care Act again fails to meet the criteria for legitimate legislation. There is no “Equity” when Citizens are inherently unequal through the application of the Affordable Care Act, vis a vis, who is exempt, and who is required to participate. As long as any single Citizen is allowed exemption from the burden of, or prosecution for non-compliance to, the Affordable Care Act, the Affordable Care Act attempts to institutionalize the unconstitutional and Inherently Inequitable abuse of Citizens.
In that the Affordable Care Act does not meet the Constitutional Requirement of being pursuant to the Constitutional Supreme Law of the Land, and is therefore no “Law” at all; and in that the Affordable Care Act does not meet even the cursory application of “Equity” in regards to the Citizens it is brought to bear against, judicial Power cannot be extended to apply to the Affordable Care Act at any level other than to find it Unconstitutional and Unlawful. For any Judge to so misinterpret their Authority as the Power to do so, is to act in extremely Bad Behavior and at enmity with the Constitution.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the testimony of Alexander Hamilton as our Seventh supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution clearly outlines the responsibilities, Powers, and Limitations of the three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, in assigning areas of Responsibility and Authority to the Branches. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 outlines Judicial Powers. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 also places limitations on Judicial Powers. The Judiciary does not have the Power to make law. The Power to make law lies with the Legislative Branch as outlined in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.
The “Judicial Supremacy Doctrine” is unconstitutional in every way, and any statutes instituted unconstitutionally by the Judiciary are at enmity with the Constitution and therefore lawless and unenforceable. Judges who exert the “Judicial Supremacy Doctrine” and “legislate from the bench” are self-identified as enemies of the Constitution by their actions. The action of illegitimately usurping the Power of the Legislative Branch to be wielded by the Judicial Branch constitutes Bad Behavior. A Judge’s authority in office and Constitutional authority to hold office, is terminated with Bad Behavior, (The Constitution, Article 3, Section 1).
In defining and establishing the intent of our Founding Fathers in drafting our Supreme Law of the Land in regard to the conduct of the Judiciary, the Citizens of the United States yield to the expressed and specific intent of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to intention of their agents…


Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stand in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental…
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statues; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statue. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.”
Hamilton expresses six fundamentals in this declaration:

1. The Constitution must be regarded by judges as the fundamental law.

2. If a statute is at odds with the Constitution, the Constitution is superior to any statute.

3. If a statute is at odds with the expressed will of the people, the intention of the people is superior to the statute promoted by the people’s agents.

4. The Judiciary is not superior to the Legislative Branch.

5. The Power of the Judiciary and the Power of the Legislative are both subservient to the Power of the People, as declared in the Constitution.

6. The Judiciary may not substitute their own pleasure over the Constitutional intentions of the Legislature, (note Hamilton specifies the “Constitutional” intentions of the Legislature, not just their intentions).
Alexander Hamilton attended the Constitutional Convention drafting our Republic’s Constitution. As a Framer and Founder of our Nation and the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, no Judge has any authority to contradict the expressed intent of those who framed our Constitutional legal system. For any Judges to substitute their own pleasure over the Constitutional intentions of the Legislature, or rule against the expressed will of the people, is for that Judge to be an enemy of the Constitution.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the testimony of Thomas Jefferson as our Eighth supporting documented evidence.
Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson”, Letter to William Jarvis, September 28th,1820, commenting on the “Judicial Supremacy Doctrine”:

You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place as under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps…Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”


Founder of our Nation and prominent drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson represents Foundational Authority that defies challenge by any Judge. Jefferson reasserts the Separation of Powers which denies Courts Authority to institute Legislation, and restrict Courts to their delegated Powers. Jefferson acknowledges Judges are as corruptible as anyone; that to leave Constitutional questions in the hands of Judges alone is to place Citizens under a Despotic Oligarchy.
Furthermore, Jefferson continues to emphasis the Constitution has never promoted the “Judicial Supremacy Doctrine”, and that to do so would make Despots of the Judiciary. Restating what has already been Constitutionally defined in the Separation of Powers, each Branch is co-equal and must operate within their Constitutionally designed Powers and Limitations.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Inasmuch as the Courts have exercise and continue to exercise the “Judicial Supremacy Doctrine” to circumvent the will of the people and the just Constitutional Powers of the Legislative Branch as the sole origin of Law, Courts and Judges who presume such unconstitutional Powers are enemies of the Constitution.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Dred Scott v. Sandford Case as our Ninth supporting documented evidence.
Dred Scott v. Sandford – 60 U.S. 393 (1856-57)

Dred Scott, a slave of African descent, sued for the freedom of himself and his family based on living in free states and 20 years of court precedents affirming the emancipation of slaves residing in free states for extended periods of their lives. Eventually the case was presented in the Supreme Court. President-Elect James Buchanan wrote to his friend, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron asking that the case be decided before his inauguration. Buchanan hoped to protect his presidential legacy by putting an end to the slavery debate before he entered office. Buchanan also pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority decision to avoid the appearance of a North/South division in the court. Chief Justice Roger Taney who presided over Dred Scott v. Sandford, also had contact with Buchanan prior to Buchanan’s Inaugural Address. Subsequently in his address, Buchanan stated the slavery question would “be speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court. All of this of course would be considered improper ex parte contact with the court.


Just two days after President Buchanan’s inauguration, Chief Justice Taney delivered the Court’s 7-2 decision against Scott on March 6, 1857. The following rulings were outlined in the Court’s decision:
1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.

2. The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (of the Constitution - 1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional.

3. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into the federal territories.
The Supreme Court’s decision was never legally challenged in court nor overturned. If these decisions were enforced, anyone of African descent is not a legal citizen of the United States with Constitutionally protected Rights. This is a prime example of the fallibility of the majority of Supreme Court Justices. This case reveals itself as a purely political maneuver and not a judicial decision at all. 1. The Supreme Court determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott’s case, but dismiss this action and rendered an opinion nonetheless. 2. The authors of the Constitution never objected on constitutional grounds to the United States Congress’ adopting the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the Continental Congress barring slavery 36 and one-half degrees north of the equator. Finally, 3. At the time the Constitution was ratified, five out of the thirteen states recognized the rights of “black men” to vote. This made them citizens of their respective states and of the United States. The Dred Scott decision ignored Constitutionally protected Rights, and rather sought to codify into our legal system the oppression of African-Americans. No other proof is necessary to determine the Supreme Court is not only fallible, but can act unlawfully.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Supreme Court Affordable Care Act ruling of June 28th, 2012 as our Tenth supporting documented evidence.
The Supreme Court Affordable Care Act ruling of June 28th, 2012

The Supreme Court with a narrow 5-4 vote rendered the opinion ObamaCare was constitutional by restricting its opinion to Congress’s taxing authority. The Justices could not find five votes supporting Congress’s power to require everyone purchase health insurance. Rather than find there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to require anyone to purchase health insurance, the Justices simply ignored this issue. Instead, the Justices rendered their opinion Congress has the constitutional authority to render a financial penalty for anyone refusing to buy insurance. The Justices presumed to find this penal authority as a form of tax Congress is constitutionally authorized to impose.


The Justices’ opinion in this case was specifically limited to produce the desired political outcome they were under pressure to render. This Supreme Court opinion however, does not address the fact that Congress has no constitutional authority to force anyone to buy health insurance. As such, the Affordable Care Act still stands as illegitimate under the Constitution. Therefore, even though five of the Justices created an argument for congressional authority to penalize noncompliance with a tax, it remains illegal for government to penalize a non-criminal act.
The Affordable Care Act remains unconstitutional and unenforceable under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 1; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1; the Fifth Amendment; the Sixth Amendment; the Tenth Amendment; and the Fourteenth Amendment. For the five Jurists to find the Affordable Care Act constitutional by rendering a limited review of the Act is purely political in nature and a complete abrogation of the Supreme Courts responsibility to fulfill its mandated responsibility under the Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1; to render judicial power “to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”. In rendering this opinion, the five Supreme Court Justices set themselves opposed to the spirit and the letter of the law as outlined in our Constitution, and displayed themselves as enemies of the Constitution and citizens’ Unalienable Rights.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Eleventh supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

A bill of attainder is an act of legislation declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and prosecuting them without the guarantee of an impartial trial. Inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act makes noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act an infraction punishable by fines without an impartial trial; and inasmuch as fines are collected by the Internal Revenue Service without the benefit of an impartial trial, the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and therefore a lawless and unenforceable statute.


Ex post facto laws are any laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of, or legal status of, actions after the fact. Inasmuch as every Citizen born before the March 23, 2010 signing of the Affordable Care Act, preexisted without a mandate to purchase insurance, preexisted without being subject to a fine for noncompliance, the Affordable Care Act retroactively changes the legal status of legal citizen living prior to March 23, 2010. Their status changes from legal citizen with autonomy to purchase or not purchase health insurance, to noncompliant offender subject to fines if they continue to exercise autonomy to not to purchase health insurance. The only options to avoid penalty for noncompliance are apply for and receive a waiver, or die. Since waivers are not available to the general public, and have not been offered as an alternative to Citizens at large, the Affordable Care Act is in fact an ex post facto law, unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Twelfth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Fifth Amendment

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act presumes to prosecute noncompliance through fines depriving Citizens of property without due process of the law, The Affordable Care Act is Unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Thirteenth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In that the Affordable Care Act does not provide Citizens accused of noncompliance the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the Affordable Care Act is Unconstitutional, Illegal, and unenforceable.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit the Constitution as our Fourteenth supporting documented evidence.
The Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As has been proven previously, the Affordable Care Act deprives Citizens of Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and the forfeiture of property through fines for noncompliance. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly forbids the making or enforcement of any statutes thus at enmity with the expressed purpose of the Constitution to protect Citizen’s Individual Rights.
As the consolidating Power representing the United States, the Federal Government, as The State, cannot legitimately transgress the Constitution with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act, with its numerous exemptions, wavier, exclusions, and provisions, specifically denies equal protection for all Citizens with the passage of this statute. The very composition of the Affordable Care Act is unequal, and as such, is Unconstitutional, Illegal, and unenforceable.

The Citizens of the Republic of the United States of America submit quotes from our Founders and Statesmen as our Fifteenth supporting documented evidence.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
President James Madison

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Daniel Webster
The voices or our Nation’s Founders and Statesmen warn us we must use our Constitution to defend ourselves from those criminal agents who would misuse the power of our own government against us. These enemies of the Constitution have crept into our governing structure and now defy the Constitution and assault our Liberties. It is our patriotic duty to protect our Constitution, our Nation, and our fellow citizens from those lawless individuals who have overthrown our Constitution.
In summation, the passage of the Affordable Care Act evidence a design to reduce to absolute despotism the people, encroaching upon the Unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, of Citizens of the Republic of the United States. It is Unconstitutional in its construct, implementation, and exemptions. Congress acted lawlessly in passing the Affordable Care Act in defiance of the Constitution and the Individual Rights protected therein. The Supreme Court abrogated their fidelity to lawful Constitutional restraints, and rather, acting in Bad Behavior, substituted their own lawless will in place of sound Constitutional Jurist Prudence.
Every Legislator and Judge who has supported and promoted this Unconstitutional assault on the Autonomy and Individual Rights of United States Citizens and the Constitution itself, identifies themselves as enemies of the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the Land. As such, their actions do not carry the weight of law nor the Power to enforce their lawlessness.
It is the duty of every Citizen to defund the enemies of the Constitution through every means necessary.



The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page