Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obamacare Originated in the Senate!
Vanity | 6/28/2012 | pgyanke

Posted on 06/28/2012 11:03:26 AM PDT by pgyanke

Please forgive the vanity but I have to share this... I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. 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.

IIRC, the House barely passed a version of Obamacare and the Senate passed a version of their own. The House version hit a roadblock in the Senate. The Dems pulled the Senate version from reconciliation and "deemed" it passed rather than risking another vote in the House.

I bring this up because I've seen a number of threads today regarding states and AGs reviewing the ruling. If I'm correct in my analysis, the SCOTUS just invalidated the whole law by declaring it a tax which did not originate in the House. Please pass this on to your elected representatives.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: deemed; obamacare
I welcome feedback. If I'm wrong... why? If I'm right... share it!
1 posted on 06/28/2012 11:03:32 AM PDT by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Pelosi passed the same bill


2 posted on 06/28/2012 11:05:20 AM PDT by Sybeck1 (John Roberts is the Anti Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

The Senate bill for Obamacare in fact started as a House bill for raising revenue for some odd thing that had nothing at all to do with health care.

The Senate then gutted that bill and filled it with Obamacare so they can say it started in the House.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 11:05:29 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

It was written primarily by the Center for American Progress.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 11:06:00 AM PDT by whitedog57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Stop stupidly grasping at straws. You’re trying to make an argument with an outdated and pissed on document, on a law that makes a complete MOCKERY of it, with the values written therein?

This country is FINISHED. There is no constitution!


5 posted on 06/28/2012 11:06:19 AM PDT by Crazieman (Are you naive enough to think VOTING will fix this entrenched system?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Bump!

If it is a tax and if it started in the Senate then I think you are right.


6 posted on 06/28/2012 11:06:35 AM PDT by killermosquito (Buffalo, Detroit (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

They don’t care if Obamacare runs the Constitution through the shredder.


7 posted on 06/28/2012 11:06:34 AM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

That was my first thought after hearing it labled as a tax. All new taxes have to originate in the House, and this bill originated in the Senate.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 11:06:55 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

They’ll argue, “It’s procedural.”

They’ll argue, “It was deemed as passed.”

You’re 100% right, but an ex post facto ruling that a fee is a tax likely won’t come up in either chamber, let alone the media.

The administration argued it was NOT a tax the whole time. It’s possible that Roberts did this to telegraph a conflict to the legislative branch, but I doubt any of them will “get it.”


9 posted on 06/28/2012 11:07:27 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
We can thank that shriveled shrew, Olympia Snow, the hagfish RINO from Maine, for letting this fetid thing live to see a vote.

People like her were tarred and feathered during our formative years.

10 posted on 06/28/2012 11:09:42 AM PDT by Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness (Eenie meanie, chili beanie, the spirits are about to speak....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Your analysis is spot on except for one minor detail,
the government no longer follows the Constitution.
11 posted on 06/28/2012 11:11:14 AM PDT by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic at 9.8357x10^8 FPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

Then Chief Justice Roberts expects to see Obamacare return to the Supreme Court on different grounds: the fact that the tax originated in the wrong place.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 11:16:08 AM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness

...hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!

That trick never works....

Thanks for the tag line, brightest moment of my day so far! Actually heard Bullwinkle in my head......


13 posted on 06/28/2012 11:17:23 AM PDT by petro45acp ("Don't" read 'HOPE' by L Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman...it will bring tears to eyes. BORE!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

The senate passed this bill with the mandate being represented as a penalty. SCOTU converted it to a tax after the fact.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 11:20:44 AM PDT by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Rush talking about this right now.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 11:24:22 AM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Meet the New Boss
Correct. The Senate amended a House bill and sent it back.

-PJ

17 posted on 06/28/2012 11:26:23 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“If I’m correct in my analysis, the SCOTUS just invalidated the whole law by declaring it a tax which did not originate in the House”

The decision changed nothing as regards this concern. With or without the mandate being a tax, it was still a spending bill and would have been unconstitutional in any case. Dems knew way back when they were calling it regulation of commerce that it had to be seen to originate in the house. That was the whole point of deeming it to have passed.

Had Obamacare been seen to originate in the Senate, as it in reality did, it would have been unconstitutional without regard to the mandate/tax issue.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 11:26:32 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Lemme see if I understand this:

1) House passes a revenue bill

2) Senate guts it and replaces it with Obamacare, with a mandate to be fined if you don’t have FedGov approved health insurance in CY 2014

3) Supremes declares the “fine” to a “tax”.

4) The Supremes did not and cannot rule on the constitutionality of the “tax” until it has been actually collected, which will be in April 15 2015 to cover taxes for CY 2014. [Anti-Injunction Law].


19 posted on 06/28/2012 11:30:11 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

You would be right....if we had a Constitution.


20 posted on 06/28/2012 11:30:11 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Let me get this straight... the court today completely shredded the Constitution to allow the government to treat us all as serfs as long as they just make noncompliance penalties "taxes", and you think this is going to be overturned on procedural grounds?

The five tyrants who upheld this decision wiped their collective a** with the Constitution.

21 posted on 06/28/2012 11:33:53 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
I think you will get "stock answer number three".

Dear Constituent:

SHUT UP! You have no standing!
Best Regards,
SCOTUS

22 posted on 06/28/2012 11:34:16 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
4) The Supremes did not and cannot rule on the constitutionality of the “tax” until it has been actually collected, which will be in April 15 2015 to cover taxes for CY 2014. [Anti-Injunction Law].

You were right up until point 4.

The court said that for purposes of determining whether the anti-injunction law applies, we will follow the way Congress called it. Congress called it not a tax, so the anti-injunction law does not apply.

The court then went on to say that for purposes of determining its constitutionality, we will NOT follow the way Congress called it. We will decide for ourselves, and we call it a tax. Therefore it is constitutional.

23 posted on 06/28/2012 11:36:01 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
4) The Supremes did not and cannot rule on the constitutionality of the “tax” until it has been actually collected, which will be in April 15 2015 to cover taxes for CY 2014. [Anti-Injunction Law].

You just sent a chill down my spine. By April 2015 this thing will be fully implemented. All of its tentacles will be firmly entrenched on every switch and lever of our healthcare system. Rule this unconstitutional then, and pull the plug on the funding, and you'll have fear, chaos panic.

Hello, Single Payer. Perhaps that was the game plan all along.
24 posted on 06/28/2012 11:48:52 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

OK, this may seem like a silly and simple question.

In all the analyses and all the now thousands of posts, I have yet to see:

WHAT IS BEING TAXED?????

Is it a payroll tax? A Property tax? An outhouse tax? What?


25 posted on 06/28/2012 11:55:40 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Guns Walked -- People Died -- Holder Lied -- Obama Golfed (thanks, Secret Agent Man))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
If the Constitution were being followed, the kenyan in the white hut would be doing hard time at Gitmo. Instead he and his commie buddies are lighting doobies, getting all wee weed up, slapping each other on the back and saying “We don't need no steenken’ Constitution. We won and 0bama is Dictator!”

The Constitution was declared Null and Void on January 20, 2009 when Roberts swore in a usurper he knew was not qualified.

26 posted on 06/28/2012 12:01:49 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (0bama lied, Freedom Died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“What is being taxed”

The condition of being an adult person who exists and breathes without insurance coverage.


27 posted on 06/28/2012 12:08:56 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
WHAT IS BEING TAXED?????

Citizenship.

28 posted on 06/28/2012 12:09:34 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I thought Roberts was against courts legislating from the bench by rewriting the laws Congress wrote. That’s what he’s done here.


29 posted on 06/28/2012 12:10:27 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Technically, the bill originated in the House. The Senate took an unrelated spending bill which had passed in the House and died in the Senate, and “amended” it to (1) delete the entire text of the original bill and (2) replace it with the ObamaCare bill. It’s a shell game, but one that happens all the time (any time the Senate comes up with a bill that could be classified as a tax or spending bill).


30 posted on 06/28/2012 12:21:30 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

NEVER FORGET ... it was Olympia Snow’s decision that brought it out of committee ... a “REPUBLICAN”.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 12:31:52 PM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (Anybody but Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag

can it be repealed in Congress now then a Senate vote of 51 vs 60 as it was a tax?


32 posted on 06/28/2012 1:26:05 PM PDT by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

When the bill went to conference, did it have a House Bill Number or a Senate Bill Number?


33 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:39 PM PDT by Law is not justice but process
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
You have a point that is worth considering.

Maybe this bill needs to go back to the Supreme Court with an argument that it is unconstitutional since it is a tax that originated in the Senate.

34 posted on 06/28/2012 5:10:16 PM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Law is not justice but process

House. HR 3590, if I recall correctly.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 7:18:08 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

According to Roberts’ majority opinion, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case.

Here’s an excerpt from the opinion:

It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the socalled tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.


36 posted on 06/29/2012 9:51:31 AM PDT by SincerelyAmanda (The media has fallen into a natural state of inaccuracy. Don't argue with it. Redeem it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson