To: Political Junkie Too
If they argue that it is a tax, don't they then have to get around Article I Section 9 Clause 1 "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?"
Worse than that. Remember that they approved the Senate version of the bill in order to get it done in reconciliation. Well now they run into the problem that all tax bills must start in the House. It wasn't a problem if it wasn't a tax. But if it is a tax, then the method of passage was unconstitutional.
134 posted on
12/13/2010 9:50:24 AM PST by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: GonzoGOP
Well now they run into the problem that all tax bills must start in the House. It wasn't a problem if it wasn't a tax. But if it is a tax, then the method of passage was unconstitutional.Actually, the bill was House Resolution 3590, sponsored by the Honorable Charles Rangel. The House bill was originally called "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," but was amended in the Senate to strip out the original resolution and replace it with what became "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
See Bill Text Versions 111th Congress (2009-2010) H.R.3590
-PJ
149 posted on
12/13/2010 9:57:22 AM PST by
Political Junkie Too
("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
To: GonzoGOP
Remember that they approved the Senate version of the bill in order to get it done in reconciliation. Well now they run into the problem that all tax bills must start in the House. It wasn't a problem if it wasn't a tax. But if it is a tax, then the method of passage was unconstitutional. Great point!
226 posted on
12/13/2010 10:46:17 AM PST by
vrwc1
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson