Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit

Treason to the Constitution, and are Null and Void.

In June, 2012, roughly two years after the initial filings, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
passed down rulings on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare, and on Arizonas SB-1070. Was the
Constitution upheld or further eviscerated? Political pundits on both sides of the issues spun the rulings to
fit either their joy or outrage depending on their political persuasion, but what really happened?
When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom. -Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE)
Regardless of which side of the issues you reside, you were betrayed. The federal district courts that the
complaints were filed in had zero constitutional authority to hear the cases. The appellate courts, including
the U.S. Supreme Court, had zero constitutional authority to hear on appeal the lawsuits against Arizonas
SB-1070 and Obamacare.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states:
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
The process matters and the ends do not justify the means, especially when the means involve shredding
the Constitution, and the ends involve destroying the sovereignty of the States, and eviscerating the Bill of
Rights. An authority usurped is a tyrannical act, and this unjust power was not derived from the consent of
the governed.
Thomas Jeffersons advice on usurpations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court:
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly
working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. They are
construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a
general and supreme one alone.
We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately
taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say,
that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his armThat
pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our Constitution, expose the decisions
seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its
patience.
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
1

Thomas Jefferson further advised:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a
wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion
with education.
James Madison, author of the Constitution, is attributed with the following from March 3, 1817:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and
subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of
illegitimate government.
In a June 12, 1823 letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson writes:
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it,
conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Taking Jeffersons advice, give due diligence to the following questions:

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought
before them, and was that Constitutional?
2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to
hear these cases [in which a State is party] on appeal?
3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then
where did they get it?
4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?
5. If the Supreme Court granted this authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?
6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?
An honest review of the process will expose that the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, was
usurped and ignored at every step of the way. Until the above questions are answered, an honest
discussion of the merits of the cases and the rulings handed down, is not possible. Until due diligence is
given the above questions, making any decisions regarding what We the Peoples next course of action
should be is premature and irresponsible.
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
2

What does the Supreme Law of the Land say about how these cases should be handled?
The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State
shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
[Emphasis added]

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will,
and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake
resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any
of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people
have delegated their power of repelling it."

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true
that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a
measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because
it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we
must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be
treason to the Constitution."

The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete
commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that
instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its
authors [Madison and Hamilton] performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their
power to explain the views with which it was framed.

These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption
or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of
its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration
where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
3

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases
brought before them, and was that Constitutional?
ANSWER: Plaintiffs cited 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 in their complaints to establish jurisdiction
and venue before inferior federal district courts. These statutes are themselves repugnant to the
Constitution, and should have been rejected. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court was
granted the power to authorize the subjugation of cases in which a State shall be Party to inferior
courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty, as clearly defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2,
Part 1, to be the first to hear cases in which a State shall be Party..
Over the years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have overstepped their authority on this
issue, each relying on the other to validate the practice, yet nothing in the Constitution authorizes
either to do so. Laws not written in pursuance of the Constitution are not law at all, and no court
has authority to rely on unconstitutional laws to take jurisdiction that is not theirs to exercise.
Additionally, no ruling passed down by a court that has no constitutional authority is valid. 28 USC
1251, 1331, and 1345 must be amended to conform to the mandates of the Constitution. View
proposal here
Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is executed, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the
supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of
the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the
Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a
law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments,
are bound by that instrument. [emphasis added]

2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority
to hear these cases [in which a State is party] on appeal?
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
4

ANSWER: They didnt. The Constitution grants no such appellate authority to any court, including
the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts should have taken these cases away from inferior
tribunals under his authority over the lesser courts, and in pursuance of his oath to uphold the U.S.
Constitution. He was advised of this constitutional crisis, and chose to ignore it, as were the
litigants in the Arizona and Virginia cases. (Read: Open letters to Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer,
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts at RejoinorDie.com)
3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution,
then where did they get it?
ANSWER: Congress, in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, granted authority to
the federal appellate courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases on appeal within the
federal judiciary in which States are Party. No such constitutional crisis would ever arise if Article
III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1 was upheld.
4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?
ANSWER: No. The Constitution only authorizes Congress to make exceptions and to establish
regulations [laws] in respect to cases that do not involve sovereign States [foreign or domestic].
The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, part 2 clearly states that the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted in relation to all the other cases before mentioned.
Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines original jurisdiction as follows:
Original Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the first instance. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of
a course at its inception, tries it, and passes judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished
from appellate jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)
5. If the Supreme Court authorized inferior federal courts to hear cases in which a State shall be
Party, does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court that power?
ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court of the United States is granted [shall have] original jurisdiction
over cases in which one of the parties represents a sovereign (foreign or domestic), and is granted
appellate jurisdiction over all the other cases.
The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not hear on appeal all the other cases for which it was
granted appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to
neglect or subjugate cases to inferior courts it is required to hear in the first instance.
The states, acting alone or in tandem, have no discretion under the Constitution to engage in a federal
lawsuit on behalf of a sovereign state in an inferior federal court. To do so violates the Constitution and
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
5

undermines the sovereign relationship of all other states that exists between them and the federal
government within our constitutional republic.
6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?
ANSWER: The Framers of the Constitution [the sovereign states] established, and the U.S.
Supreme Court has acknowledged, that when a conflict between the sovereign States and the
federal government arises, and said conflict is to be resolved within a federal court, that it must be
adjudicated in the first instance before the U.S. Supreme Court, and no other. The Constitution
makes no differentiation regarding whether or not the State is a plaintiff or a defendant. The cases
against Obamacare and Arizonas SB-1070 fall in that category.
Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 81:
In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to
be turned over to an inferior tribunal.
George Washington warned us, and advised us in his 1796 Farewell Address:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional
powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way
which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for
though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the
judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that
body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have
defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The
subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if
such is to be the construction.

If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the
Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction
where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction
made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
6

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those
affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they
have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without

effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a
provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might
be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to
provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been
intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such
exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed
exclusive of original jurisdiction.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the
supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of
the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the
Constitution, have that rank.

When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one

Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then
enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original
jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the
words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not
appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. ,If any other construction would
render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other
construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.
- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Mr. Bernard Reese, a Trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, in an August 10, 2010 article titled,
Court had no authority in Arizona case; Supreme Court does, published in the Rockford Register Star
states:
The United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 specifically provides that: In all cases .
in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
7

Thus, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder filed the federal governments lawsuit against the
state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. This means that neither
Judge Susan Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is
being appealed, has any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue... (Emphasis added)
-Bernard Reese, of the law firm Reese & Reese,
Trustee, Supreme Court Historical Society
In early August, 2010, taking the advice of Jefferson to inform their discretion through education, letters
were delivered to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and U.S.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. These letters have since become known as scarlet letters.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in a December 12, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview
with Chris Wallace, stated the following items should be taken into consideration when deciding cases in
the interest of maintaining public confidence in the court: 1- the text of the legislation, 2- the history, 3- the
traditions, 4- the precedents, 5- the values, and 6- the consequences of the decision.
An application of Justice Breyers philosophy on maintaining public confidence in the court suggests the
following analysis:

TEXT Compare 28 USC 1251 to Article III, Section 2, and the bills to the Constitution.

HISTORY Founding documents & Federalist Papers 62, 78, and 81

TRADITIONS original jurisdiction in Blackstones Commentaries, and in Blacks Law

Dictionary.

PRECEDENT Marbury v. Madison, Cohens v. Virginia, Kentucky v. Dennison

VALUES does this statute uphold intent of the Framers?

CONSEQUENCES shredding of States Rights, risks the loss of confidence in the Supreme
Court to uphold the Constitution.

Was public confidence in the Supreme Court advanced or diminished by these rulings? Not from my
perspective. Without getting into the merits of the case, if the Constitution was usurped at every step of the
way, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice does nothing to secure the integrity of the process, how can
public confidence in the high court be anything but diminished?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.
- Henry David Thoreau
A wise man told me If you dont know where youre headed, any road will get you there. Are we heading
in the direction of restoring and upholding the Constitution, or are we being ruled by the whims of men?
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
8

Did we bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution as Jefferson advised? The
parties that filed these lawsuits and the parties that responded made strategic decisions to ignore the
Supreme Law of the Land and relied instead on unconstitutional statutes and case law to justify their
actions. The federal district courts which took original jurisdiction had no such constitutional authority as
the statutes they relied upon to establish jurisdiction and venue were themselves unconstitutional.
The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, relied on precedent and unconstitutional statutes
to establish their appellate authority to review the cases against Obamacare and Arizonas SB-1070.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to authorize the
subjugation of cases to inferior tribunals [federal district courts] in which the sovereign states are Party,
nor has it been amended to grant the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to
hear cases on appeal in which a state is Party.
This is not just government, and We the People have not consented to it. There are many remedies
available to right these wrongs. The sovereign states have a duty to interpose, nullify, and reject these
rulings, and We the People have a duty to replace every usurper in public office: federal, state, and local.
Face it folks, the system has been perverted to undermine, ignore, and destroy our constitutional republic.
Our ignorance of the mandates in the Constitution have made us vulnerable to opportunists who prey upon
the public resolve for their own political or financial gain with reckless disregard for the Constitution they
swore an oath to defend against all enemies. When we cheer on such usurpations because the rulings are
favorable to our positions, we become enablers to the destruction of our constitutional republic.
Samuel Adams, often referred to as the Father of the American Revolution, advised us,
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in
Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Obamacare and Arizonas SB-1070 arent the core problem. The rulings for and against them arent the
core solution. Tens of millions of dollars were coerced out of grassroots pockets to fight against
Obamacare, and nothing changed. The federal governments refusal to uphold its constitutional duty to
protect us against invasion (see Article IV, Section 4), and the states refusal to demand their grievances
be heard in a court that has constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) further empowers the
federal government and further eviscerates state sovereignty. Without the states upholding their
constitutional duties, We the People dont have a chance of preserving our God-given Rights against a
rogue federal government.

PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
9

The facts bear out that state sovereignty is all but gone, not just because of abuses by a rogue federal
government, but because state governments refuse to uphold their Constitutional duties, and lastly
because We the People sanction these usurpations.
We must chop at the root of the evil, and stop whacking at the limbs. The process matters. We cannot
restore Constitutional governance by ignoring and bypassing the mandates of the Constitution. If
Sponge Bob Square Pants handed down a ruling on Obamacare, would we give it more than a second
thought? No. We would consider it ridiculous. Would we sign a petition or send millions of dollars to
Beltway pundits who lambasted Sponge Bobs ruling so they would save us from this injustice? Of course
not. The solution can be found in the same place the problem originated: the mirror.
We the People will either stop supporting scoundrels and scalawags who proudly disregard their oath of
office, or we will continue to suffer these abuses of our liberties. We must adopt a zero tolerance policy
for oath breakers, and turn them out of office at the earliest convenience.
We must focus our efforts at the state and local level to better vet the candidates who wish to represent
us. Elect men and women of courage and character.
Jeff Lewis
National Director, FIRE Coalition
National Director, Patriot Coalition
Project Director, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER
Email: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com
Phone: 252-876-9489
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog

God Bless America and Those That Defend Her!

Download this report: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/SCOTUS-RULING-VOID.pdf
PatriotCoalition.com TheIntolerableActs.org
Defending Life and Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!
10