Purpura v. Sebelius series

The Essex County Conservative Examiner maintains a series of articles on New Jersey's unique contribution to the litigation involving the healthcare-reform law: Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al.

This case is unique for two reasons:

Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald F. Laster Jr have filed this lawsuit without the aid of a lawyer. Perhaps on that account, federal officials, not to mention the US District Court for New Jersey, have consistently behaved as though they believe that if they just ignore the case, it will go away. But this case is not going away, and now is headed for a hearing on a summary-judgment motion.

The plaintiffs raise fifteen separate Constitutional issues, and challenge many long-cherished assumptions about how legislation is actually supposed to work.

The specific counts are as follows:

1. Originated in the Senate, not the House. (I.7.1).
2. Improperly extends the Commerce Clause (I.8.3).
3. Raises and supports what would be an eighth uniformed service, under a four-year appropriation (I.8.12).
4. Levies a non-apportioned capitation tax (I.9.4).
5. Lays a tax on selected State exports, i.e. medical devices (I.9.5).
6. Obama is not a natural-born citizen (not to be confused with a "citizen at birth"), because his father was an alien (II.1.5).
7. Double-taxes income, or taxes nonexistent income (Amendment XVI).
8. Makes patient records subject to warrantless search and seizure (Amendment IV).
9. Deprives individuals of property without due process of law (Amendment V), and makes involuntary servants of them (Amendment XIII), through the "individual mandate."
10. Directs States to take property without due process of law and to deny their citizens and lawful residents the equal protection of the laws (Amendment XIV).
11. Establishes certain religions as favored by granting selective religious exemptions (Amendment I).
12. Attempts to limit judicial review of key provisions (Article III).
13. Discriminates among races, through some grant programs and through taxes on activities that only certain races would pursue (Amendment XIV; Title VII)
14. Implicates Congress in an act that violates their oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI).
15. Arrogates to the federal government certain unenumerated powers, thus infringing upon reserved powers (Amendment X).

The articles, in order of publication, are as follows:

• Jersey Shore Tea Party files pro se complaint against feds re healthcare
• Latest HCR lawsult a classic citizens' revolt
• Citizens file for temporary injunction against HCR bill
• Constitutional law and the question of standing
• Christie will not join anti-HCR lawsuit
• When a House bill is not a House bill
• The Commerce Clause in HCR
• Michigan anti-HCR plaintiffs had weak argument, say NJ plaintiffs
• Pro se anti-HCR plaintiffs ask judge to sign TRO
• The history of Presidential health care armies
• The constitutionality of a Presidential health-care army
• HCR mandate: capitation tax or bill of attainder?
• HCR medical-device taxes unconstitutional, say NJ plaintiffs
• Two NJ HCR plaintiffs say Florida judge helped them
• Novel eligiblity challenge in NJ anti-HCR suit
• Obama renounced citizenship and eligibility, say NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs
• NJ plaintiffs: HCR exceeds 16th amendment
• NJ plaintiffs warn of warrantless search and seizure of medical records
• NJ plaintiffs vindicated on DOJ gamesmanship
  
• HCR mandate and due process of law
• NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs demand that judge recuse self from case
• NJ Tea Party activists rejoice over anti-HCR ruling
• NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs to get summary judgment hearing
  
• Summary judgment hearing delayed in NJ HCR lawsuit
• HCR bill forces States to act unconstitutionally, say NJ plaintiffs
  
• NJ plaintiffs: Obama administration establishing religions
• DOJ begs for more time from NJ pro se plaintiffs
  
• DOJ moves to stay pro se lawsuit in NJ
  
• HCR bill attempts to limit judicial review
  
• HCR and equal protection of the laws
  
• What the Constitutional oath means
  
• Pro se plaintiffs protest HCR effect on NJ, other States
  
• Is the District Court ignoring its own rules?
  
• Whether the NJ USA was properly served
  
• HCR plaintiffs reply to 'anticipated' defense motions
  
• Obama eligibility count in NJ HCR suit gains national attention
  
• NJ anti-HCR case continued into February
  
• DOJ finally responds to NJ pro se complaint
  
• DOJ answers to Counts 2 and 3 of NJ anti-HCR suit
  
• DOJ answers to Counts 4, 8, and 9—and a killer typo
  
• DOJ answers to Counts 10, 11, and 15
• DOJ failure to answer all claims in NJ anti-HCR lawsuit
  
• NJ anti-HCR lawsuit not the only challenge
  
• Precedent for a strict definition of 'natural-born citizen'
• Scott Garrett disavows knowledge of NJ ant-HCR lawsuit
  
• NJ, 3 other States receive federal HCR waivers
• NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs hail summary judgment in Florida case
• House, Court members from NJ will play roles in HCR drama
• NJ pro se plaintiffs reply to defense 'memorandum'
• NJ pro se plaintiffs: HCR waivers are unconstitutional
• NJ activists wait on own case as Vinson slaps fedgov
• Impatient legal activists complain of delay
  
• Court dismisses NJ anti-HCR complaint
  
• Obama birth certificate does not satisfy
  
• NJ activist says Obama has disqualified himself
  
• NJ anti-HCR lawsuit on appeal
  
• DOJ stalling NJ anti-HCR case
  
• HCR plaintiffs seek injunction from 3rd Circuit
  
• HCR plaintiffs file second default motion at 3rd Circuit
  
• Frustrated anti-HCR plaintiffs demand en banc hearing
  
• HCR bill challenge: mystery date on judge's order
  
• NJ anti-HCR activists cry vindication on search and seizure of medical records
  
• NJ anti-HCR activists head to Supreme Court
  
• Details of NJ anti-HCR Supreme Court cert petition
  
• NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs give mixed reviews to SCOTUS
  
• NJ anti-HCR plaintiffs call for 'Miracle on 34th Street'
  
• NJ activists seek recusal of two SCOTUS JJ
  

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.