Whether Section 2252 of Title 18 of the United States Code is void ab initio and no law at all on the ground Congress has no authority to enact the Statute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (i) Whether Section 2252 of Title 18 of the United States Code ("Section 2252" or the "Statute") forming the gravamen of the charges in the Indictment lodged against Petitioner is void ab initio and no law at all on the ground Congress has no authority, direct or implied, to enact the Statute? (ii) Whether the lower courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this criminal proceeding becausé the charging Statute is void ab initio? | (iii) Whether the lower courts failed to fulfill the independent and mandatory duty imposed on every Article III Court to confirm the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction prior to deciding any other aspect of this case? | (iv) Whether Congress lacks power outside of the Federal Enclave without ratification of an authorizing Amendment under Article V of the Constitution to promulgate, by expression or implication, new crimes beyond the ambit of the "Four Felonies" enumerated in Articles I and III of the Constitution? (v) | Whether the enactment of Section 2252, in the guise of regulating interstate commerce and in contravention of fundamental principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, impermissibly intrudes upon the broad residinm of ; sovereign power reserved to the States upon joining the Union and to the people pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution? (vi) Whether the Commerce Clause can be used to expand (with or without the Necessary and Proper Clause) the power to punish beyond the ambit of the ; Four Felonies enumerated in Articles I and III? (vii) Whether the historical and structural context of the Conmerce Clause, including the original intent and meaning as interpreted and applied in Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, should be interpreted and applied consistently across the Commerce Power corpus juris and to this case to | strike down laws like Section 2252 directly contravening the original intent | and meaning of the Commerce Clause? 7 i (viii) Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapprehended and/or ignored the Notice of Appeal raising these questions of public importance separate and distinct from the Request for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability? } , | | | | | | | | | | | LISI OF PARTIES ; . | The Caption set out above contains the names of the parties. | RELATED CASES A. United States v. Aho, 15-CR-60225 (S.D. FL. June 1, 2018); B. United States v. Aho, 20-CV-62517 (S.D. FL. Sept. 14, 2021); C. United States v. Aho, 21-13328-C (11th Cir.), rehearing denied Mar. 16, 2022 (unpublished) ; D. United States v. Aho, 779 Fed.Appx. 613 (11th Cir.) cert. denied, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 7284 (2019). iii TABLE OF CONTENIS SECTION PAGE QUESTIONS PRESENTED . i