Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting Today on Health Care/Eligibility Challenge

PURPURA V. SEBELIUS ASKS IF OBAMA WAS QUALIFIED TO SIGN THE BILL

by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide to Hear Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges Obama's eligibility to have signed the health care law?

(Feb. 17, 2012) — 11:49 a.m. ET – The Post & Email has just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court will be conferencing today to decide whether or not to hear the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill and Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr. call their challenge the “We the People” brief.

Purpura stated that his case is “the best one” to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by Obama. He had submitted a Request for Reargument to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case on January 17, 2012.

Purpura has stated that “the reason they don’t want to take the case and why they’re most frightened is Count 6,” which claims that if Obama is not eligible to serve as President, the bill is null and void.

A prayer request was put out by Purpura, and today he stated that he is “getting calls from all over the country” in response to it. “People are praying at the Oklahoma Air Force base; people throughout the country…they’re even praying at the Supreme Court! They want their lawsuit heard,” he said.

A new 17-page brief with 15 pages of argument sent to the Supreme Court was dated January 27, with Purpura representing himself. “What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,” Purpura told The Post & Email. “Count 6 is the most important.”

Purpura also said that “Sotomayor and Kagan cannot hear this case” because of their conflict of interest, having been appointed to the court by Obama.

"Count 6" asks how Obama can "exercise the authority of the office of President" if he is not a "natural born Citizen"

Page 7 explains "Count 6," which asks if Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to serve as President

Count 6 reads:

18. Count 6 Violation Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5; No Constitutional question before this Honorable Court surpasses the importance concerning this issue that must be adjudicated. Petitioner has never stated Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States. That being said, the Constitutional question exists: is Mr. Obama a “natural born Citizen”, if not; how can he exercise the authority of the office of President? Failure to address this Count would constitute a desertion from ones [sic] sworn fiduciary duty and betrayal of the United States Constitution. (See Article 6, Paragraph 2). The Court must consider during the years Mr. Obama was developing a power base and running for President Congress 8-times attempted to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy…

19. Therefore, the question still exists whether Mr. Obama was eligible to sign “Act” in law, make appointments, institute regulations or hold the office of president?

Of this new development, Purpura told The Post & Email:

This is really important, because they’re disenfranchising the voters if they don’t hear it. The first three pages, which are the opening statement, will tell you everything, and so will the last page. The only count that really counts here is Count 6. As you know, there are ballot challenges throughout the country, and what I told them flat-out is, “You have no choice but to hear this because we have a constitutional crisis.” I’m believing, that if you read Count 6, because that’s the most important one in the whole brief, they’re sort-of trapped if they’re honest. Kagan and Sotomayor cannot by U.S. statute participate. So we’re in great shape in reality. But will they obey the statutes, or will they do what this administration is doing: ignoring the law that are on the books in the United States.

Purpura then read from the third page of the brief:

It is incumbent upon this Court to settle the issue of ‘eligibility’ post haste to afford those in the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an “eligible” candidate to be on the ballot in November. To do otherwise disenfranchises all voters and continues the constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to address Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign’s challenge. To ignore this constitutional challenge will have devastating consequence which this Court bears full responsibility for failing to perform its fiduciary duty pursuant to your sworn oath taken by every Member of this Court.