Skip to comments.DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?
Posted on 07/01/2012 8:51:53 AM PDT by MrChips
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? . . . . I heard somewhere that if Obama wins re-election (God forbid) but the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, that the bill can be repealed as a reconciliation bill WITHOUT the president's signature. Is that true?
I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.
I think it takes a two thirds majority in both House and Senate to override a Veto of a bill....I’m guess the repeal bill would be vetoed and they’d have to have at least 2/3 majority both places to override - killing Obamacare
Not true. Legislation still requires the President’s signature.
Obama ain’t winning..
All the Republicans have to do if they take control is “Deem Any bill they wish to have been passed” just like Nazi Pelosi. Hell they could deem any bill vetoed by obama to be overridden by a simple voice vote, just like Nazi Pelosi. But they won’t.
Not by a President Oboma, but yes with a President Romney. Her point was win the Senate (not requiring 60 votes) and he White House and you can repeal by reconciliation. Don’t know if they would have the guts to do it, but the Rats dit it in passing initially. Not too much precedent.
The President either has to sign it or if he vetoes then it takes 2/3 majority vote to overide the veto.
It won’t matter because if he wins a second term it will mean the Mayans were right and 2012 is the end of the world.
I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a tax, it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.
I believe this is correct.
I’m with ya.
Even after just one term it is already the end of the U.S. as we know it.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacares health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law or even the full law itself.
Come on now....where’s that “Fightin” spirit and positive attitude?
“Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he expects Republicans to use reconciliation in the repeal effort during the 113th Congress. Kyl is not running for reelection.
Mike Franc, Heritages Vice President of Government Studies, explained the details of reconciliations applicability thusly:
Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a tax, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Acts reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But todays decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern.
The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senates filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.”
(same source as my previous post)
It does not seem to meet the Constitutionally defined enumerated taxes Congress has the power to levy
I don't get the conservative optimism over a silver lining
Our Republic was usurped in 2009 (if not sooner) and the usurpers are bound and determined to impose a health control scheme on the American people by fiat from one branch of government or another, or all 3. and the GOP will go along.
So they will.
Reconciliation can’t be used on the Mandate. It CAN be used on a couple of minor provisions, but that’s it. And, as others said, it requires the President’s signature regardless.
Could a Republican President issue an Executive Order to ignore the law even of it’s on the books like Obsma did re immigration?
If Obama wins re-election, he will DECLARE HIS DOG "BO" to be a SENATOR, completely destroying all power of the Senate, and he will simply ignore them from then on.
“now that it is officially a tax,...”
I keep seeing this and hearing people say it, but I can’t find anywhere that it is somehow a tax declaratively - including the majority SCOTUS opinion written by Roberts.
Roberts merely said that it can be looked at as a tax (essentially) because it is a penalty under the taxing authority and collected by the IRS, but it is not considered a tax under statute. This means that the court treated it as a tax in order to even hear the case, and to rule the way they did. If it was truly a tax in the traditional sense, then the case would have been denied and someone would have to wait to file until they were “injured” by the law (IOW only after they had to pay the tax, not before).
I think the opinion was written specifically to allow all of the pols to split hairs and have it both ways as is and whenever necessary.
That’s my 2 cents on it.
Apparently the president, congress and the supreme court can do what ever the hell they want when ever they without regard to laws, the constitution or regulations.
Lookit. Your not going to get rid of it. What backs the
American dollar? The full faith and credit of the federal
government. What is that faith and credit? The governments
ability to directly tax its citizens. The dollar is tanking
because this Marxist administration is printing and blowing as much money as possible to make sure we need the new tax
base to keep from going bankrupt.
They could care less about
the citizens health. They (both RINO and Libtard) just want
the power. And Romney is just another stealth Libtard just
like Roberts. Honestly, can you really say you can trust
Meh. Polls say otherwise and the feckless Romney isn’t going to fire up anybody. If we can’t even influence our own Party to nominate a Conservative, even a SORT OF conservative, there is NO chance we would have any influence over that idiot if the stars aligned and, by miracle, he was elected.
I just watched some ditzy ‘RAT bimbo on FNC say that the dumbass, American taxpayers (TEA Party) all need to go back and read their “pocket Constitutions” because we’re all a bunch of morons who need to just shut up and choke on the court’s decision. She was smirking at us the whole time. Nice.
Bills can become law without the President’s approval. From Article I of the Constitution:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
All budget bills originate in the House of Representatives. If you can’t repeal the cursed thing, just defund it.
From Page 4 of the Opinion:
“(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the [s]hared responsibilitypayment as a penalty, not a tax. That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congresss power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application. United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 3335.
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”
If it walks like a duck...and talks like a duck...
No. No law can be passed with a simple majority vote, without the President’s signature.
It’s disheartening to see posts like this (and there have been many like it since the ruling was announced). If we are going to defend the Constitution against 0bama and his minions, we d**n well better know what it says.
Yep, just don’t fund the extra IRS agents that are needed in order to collect the tax.
“Obama aint winning..”
From your keyboard to God’s eyes!
If Romney wins in a landslide, which is now very possible, and the Senate goes hard Republican, almost assured, than they have the duty to use every trick the Democrats have used since 2009 to right the ship. It is imperative!
The argument would be it was a tax on the luxury of being a medical services freeloader.
The other word for such taxes is "sin tax". New York city's mayor thinks eating sugar is a sin and he wants it taxed. He thought driving your car into manhattan was a sin, and he's against large soda bottles ~ guy is just one sin after another.
That's why you will find many people not understanding where Roberts got these strange ideas.
I myself do not lead a perfect "Christlike" life so I know something about sin. Frankly, taxing sin to finance good works is a sin in itself. It's proponents are the worst of all sinners since they imagine you can earn salvation through works alone.
Romney believes that. Obama doesn't. He simply a control freak.
That’s the correct answer. After a presidents veto 2/3, of the members present, of both House and Senate can over ride the veto.
Im being flippant.. every hour that ticks, Obama loses votes. Im not sure anyone trusts him, except the ignorant...
Bizarre isn't it.
And that says it all.
“Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a tax, it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.”
That’s only for getting it through the senate.
It’s repealed ONLY IF THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE BILL.
If the President vetoes you need a 2/3rds to override. We wont have that many.
Bottom line: If Obama wins, we have ObamaTaxCare forever.
If Romney wins, and we get a Republican House and Senate, we get it repealed.
No, Obama would be involved no matter what if he’s still president. You can be assured he’d veto the repeal.
Ah, yes... the court decision that says you cant regulate economic inactivity... because it’s not commerce. But you can tax non-activity!
Absolutely rediculous, you can’t tax non-zctivity for the same reason it’s not comerce: it doesn’t exist.
Oh, but wait, it’s really a fine, and you can be dined for non-activity, so it’s all good!
I guess they’ve been reading physics books and decided the mandate like light, which displays characteristics of both waves and particles, also shares characteristics of two disparate things: punitive-fines and taxes.
What you said: “...If Romney wins, and we get a Republican house and Senate, we get it repealed.”
What too many hear: “blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...Mormon...blah, blah, blah...”
Not, it’s not true. Still requires the Resident’s signature 0r 2/3 majorities to override the veto.
They’ll have to get over their hangups. We’ve had Quakers, Deists, Catholics, and philandering hypocrites in the White House. But its the socialist in the White House right now who’s the real problem.
Since door-to-door canvassing is the best way to get out the vote....let’s start having some neighborhood/church family or mini-community get-togethers to influence some honest discussion and more ways to get others to vote...vans/buses/absentee ballots for the elderly/infirm...etc.
WE can do this REALLY well!
You need two-thirds of the Senate for removal. That won't happen.
As far as the commerce clause it could have been given the same lack of power as Rogers did and still repeal the entire or at least the penalty part of the bill. Think!!!!!
“Reconciliation cant be used on the Mandate. It CAN be used on a couple of minor provisions, but thats it. And, as others said, it requires the Presidents signature regardless.”
ObamaCare was passed by the Senate IN ITS ENTIRETY using reconciliation. It can be negated IN ITS ENTIRETY in 2013 using reconciliation. And there’s not a reason in the world why the Republicans wouldn’t want to do that—except perhaps for McConnell’s cowardliness and desire to “be nice” to the Democratic minority.
And that’s the reason we all have to elect as many TRUE CONSERVATIVE Republicans to the Senate as possible.
From the Senate website... "override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.
Would/could it happen? not likely...
Roberts bought the administrations second fallback argument that the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax, even though the administration abandoned that argument during the course of litigation, and even though calling it a tax would seem to implicate the Anti Injunction Act, which would preclude the Court from even deciding this case until someone was forced to pay the tax, which wont happen for another couple of years. Yet the Court apparently brushed aside that AIA impediment talk about lawlessness in its rush to uphold ObamaCare.
And so theres your foundation for the decision: the individual mandate is constitutional based on Congresss power to tax: Congress can tax those who dont buy government approved health insurance. Dont ask what kind of a tax that is! Its not an income tax. Nor is it a duty, impost, or excise tax, the only kinds of taxes recognized under the Tax Clause of the Constitution, where Roberts purports to rest Congresss power; and it certainly isnt uniform throughout the United States, as is required for those taxes. Its sui generis, which is a polite way of saying its unconstitutional if we take the Constitution seriously.
But thats just the problem, isnt it? As James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, and virtually everyone else at the Founding made clear, the power to tax, the first of Congresss 18 enumerated powers, like the power to borrow, Congresss second enumerated power, was designed to enable Congress to obtain the funds needed to carry out its other enumerated powers or ends. It was not, as Madison made clear in Federalist 41, and often on the floor of Congress, an independent power to tax for any purpose at all. Search as you will through those 18 enumerated powers and you will find no power to enact ObamaCare or anything like it. And please dont say that the taxing power serves the commerce power which in turn authorizes the individual mandate, because the Court nixed that second leap today. ~ Roger Pilon [Cato]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.