Whether the Affordable Care Act contains one or more constitutional violations

Issues Presented This case originated in District Court on 2/4/2016. Despite the government’s admission at least in part to a violation of Constitutional Rights, on 6/14/2018 a District Court finally and completely dismissed case 4:16-cv-307. It was appealed | to the 5" Circuit, case 18-20440. The case was fully briefed on 3/12/2019. On 8/7/2019 the case was placed in abeyance in favor of Texas v. United States, case 19-10011 in the same court. | filed a Response Letter objecting to this action by the court. On 3/9/2020 in response to the government's 28(j) Letter, the court requested Supplemental Briefs. The government in their Brief has requested another Stay, which will be the third in the history of this case. As will be expanded later in this Petition, the cases currently in the Supreme Court present different ‘issues as compared to the instant case. The lower courts have unjustly delayed this case and will probably continue to do so. It is possible this case will become moot by a Supreme Court decision in the case previously mentioned before the issues in this case can be properly heard. | therefore request this case be granted Certiorari and set for hearing either before or simultaneously with any case which could cause the instant case to be moot. Issues presented to the Court for decision: 1)Do one or more Constitutional! violations exist in the ACA? Subsidiary to this question and suggested by the Claims in the Complaint and subsequent papers are multiple violations which may require the court to decide such questions as: a)Does the HHS Mandate violate one or more of the RFRA, the 1% i amendment, or equal protection? b)Do the religious Exemptions in the ACA violate RFRA, the 1% amendment, or due process? c)Does the ACA violate freedom of association, privacy rights, equal protection, or due process? 2)Does the Constitutional violations of the ACA constitute a law which is so corrupt, “unreasonable” and “capricious” as to goals and implementation to make it unseverable? 3)Can the principle of the Consent of the Governed be restored to some degree by a declaration properly defining a “direct tax?” ii