Judge Grants Amicus Curiae Brief: Health Care/Austerity Bill, Null & Void Due To Obama’s Ineligibility.

“THIS MOTION IS GRANTED”
by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 2010) — Last March The Post & Email reported on an “Admission of Ineligibility” declared by a Florida man after he charged Barack Hussein Obama with “negligence” for failing to answer his request that Obama prove he is a natural born Citizen and therefore qualified to hold the office of President of the United States.

Mr. W. Spencer Connerat III, the author of the document which he deemed a “confession,” had originally sent it to the attorneys general of Florida and Virginia last March in the likely event that either or both of them decided to file a lawsuit over
the impending passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Some have referred to the legislation as “Obamacare,” and its constitutionality has been debated since long before its passage.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed suit against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius directly after the legislation was passed by Congress on March 23, 2010. A group of more than 20 states filed a similar lawsuit led by Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida.

Regarding Obama’s constitutional qualifications for office, Cuccinelli has acceded to the possibility that Obama might have been born in a foreign country, but has also said that he “believes” that Obama was born in the
United States.

Just today, Sebelius announced that “the government is giving $727 million to 143 community health centers across the country.”

On July 2, 2010, Judge Henry Hudson denied the federal government’s request to dismiss the Commonwealth of Virginia’s lawsuit over the PPACA, ruling that the Commonwealth had “standing”
to sue because of its passage of a law protecting its citizens from
being forced to purchase a government-mandated health care program.

On September 21, 2010, Judge Hudson granted Mr. Connerat’s motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief to be included in the Virginia lawsuit along with many others filed by interested parties, including Physician Hospitals of America, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and the American Civil Rights Union.

Judge Henry Hudson’s order to send a copy of the Amicus Curiae brief “to all counsel of record”

The text of the order reads:

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on an Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (Dk. No. 92), submitted by W. Spencer Connerat, III. Upon due
consideration, this Motion is GRANTED.

Movant included his Brief as Amicus Curiae with the Motion that he filed with the Court. The Clerk is therefore directed to file Movant’s Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
(Dk. No. 92) as Movant’s Brief as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.

Connerat’s Friend of the Court brief consists of three pages and reportedly alleges that the health care bill was signed into law by someone ineligible to do so. It can be found on Scribd here. The brief and Mr. Connerat’s original “Tacit Admission of Ineligibility” can be found here.

Others have speculated that it is widely known by members of all branches of government that Obama does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements to serve
as President.

One report states that if Republicans gain enough seats in the House and Senate in next month’s midterm elections, a host of possible crimes will be investigated, although it does not mention the question of Obama’s eligibility.

In denying the government’s motion to dismiss the challenge to the individual health insurance mandate, Judge Vinson ruled that “the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.” This is because of the unprecedented nature of the government’s claim of power. As Judge Vinson explained, all previous commerce clause cases involved the regulation of “voluntary undertaking[s]” or activity. But “in this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”

This decision now join’s District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling in Virginia refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. In both Virginia and Florida we now move to a decision on the merits. Given how well both judges understood the constitutional novelty of imposing economic mandates on the people, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that they will find the individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. But, however the district courts rule on this case, their reception of the arguments made by the state attorneys general foretell that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his ruling, Vinson criticized Democrats for seeking to have it both ways when it comes to defending the mandate to buy insurance. During the legislative debate, Republicans chastised the proposal as a new tax on the middle class. Obama defended the payment as a penalty and not a tax, but the Justice Department has argued that legally, it’s a tax.

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,” he wrote.

Vinson ruled that it’s a penalty, not a tax, and must be defended under the Commerce Clause and not Congress’ taxing authority. Michelle Malkin