Tag Archives: Pro se

Court dismisses NJ anti-HCR complaint

Nick Purpura prepares to reargue his health care reform bill case. Now he's arguing a right to bear arms case--before the US Supreme Court, no less.

A New Jersey US District Court judge has dismissed the pro se complaint brought by two New Jersey Tea Party activists, who vow to appeal immediately.

Judge Freda L. Wolfson handed down a one-page ruling and a twenty-page opinion on Thursday, April 21, in the case of Purpura et al. v. Sibelius et al. (Case no. 3:10-CV-10-04814-FLW-DEA). The court ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by Ethan P. Davis on behalf of the federal government. This motion asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and on that account the court lacked the all-important subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The court essentially agreed.

…the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care] Act. Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Healthcare Act could be hazardous to your health

Nick Purpura prepares to reargue his health care reform bill case. Now he's arguing a right to bear arms case--before the US Supreme Court, no less.

By Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr

Many agree that healthcare reform is needed. However, the Healthcare Act signed into law has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. Under the guise of “affordable healthcare,” the Democratic Party designed a plan that transferred massive power to the Executive Branch of government along with 1/6th of the economy to federal control in violation of Article I, Section 7 of our Constitution.

In district courts throughout the United States, the Department of Justice is arguing that Congress has authority under the “commerce clause” to mandate the purchase of health insurance and the right to impose or fine those who refuse. They argue the fines and mandates are necessary for the “general welfare” and claim the authority exists under the “necessary and proper clause.” However, there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes “specific welfare” by forcing one group of citizens to pay for another group. In 1936 the Supreme Court ruled against “specific welfare” legislation as being unconstitutional. Since healthcare legislation has passed, two federal courts have also ruled that this Act is unconstitutional.