Taya v. United States/Transcript

No. 11

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

Charles Taya,

Petitioner,

V.

United States of America

Respondent,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JAMES TAYLOR COUNSEL OF RECORD COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Charles Taya, through his attorneys, bring this action under the United States Constitution and the Ban on websites that promote illegal pornographic material Act seeking a declaration that the law as a whole and that the specific singling out of Pornhub and YouPorn are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs seek an injunction and relief. In support of thereof, the Plaintiff allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Framers of the United States Constitution were deeply concerned about the potential abuse of legislative power. Their very valid concern was that the legislative would be ever expanding its influence and draw all power into itself. “Against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” (James Madison) It is with this in mind that the framers granted Congress only limited and enumerated powers. Further divided these powers between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Limited these powers by subjecting the exercise of these powers to strict procedures and vested the executive and judicial in separate, independent, and equal branches of government. The Ban on websites that promote illegal pornographic material Act is and does not fall under purview of the enumerated powers of the United States Congress as stated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Further, the Framers were particularly concerned that the legislature would use its power to target specific individuals for adverse treatment. The Framers believed that, if the legislature could itself sanction specific persons “without hearing or trial” conducted by the Executive or the courts, “no man can be safe, nor know when he may be an innocent victim of the prevailing faction” (Alexander Hamilton)

Thus even where the Framers otherwise granted Congress enumerated legislative powers, they prohibited it from using these powers to enact bills of attainder that impose punishment on specific individuals identified by the legislature. This Ban imposes sanctions against persons or businesses without giving a fair hearing or the opportunity to rebut or cure infractions or allegations against it and without opportunity for escape. Further, the Due Process clause prohibits legislation that would single out particular persons for deprivation of liberty. Finally, the Framers further prohibited legislation that, rather than simply enacting a general rule, applied a rule to an individual case or person. It is on these Constitutional Arguments that we ask the court to strike this law: Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits Bills of Attainder. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) The 9th and 10th Amendments specifically limit the power of congress. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) The 14th Amendment Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)