Skip to comments.Obamacare Originated in the Senate!
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.
Pelosi passed the same bill
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.
It was written primarily by the Center for American Progress.
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 You’re trying to make an argument with an outdated and pissed on document, on a law that makes a complete MOCKERY of it, with the values written therein?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!
If it is a tax and if it started in the Senate then I think you are right.
They don’t care if Obamacare runs the Constitution through the shredder.
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.
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.”
People like her were tarred and feathered during our formative years.
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.
...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......
The senate passed this bill with the mandate being represented as a penalty. SCOTU converted it to a tax after the fact.
Rush talking about this right now.
“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.
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].
You would be right....if we had a Constitution.
The five tyrants who upheld this decision wiped their collective a** with the Constitution.
SHUT UP! You have no standing!
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.
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?
The Constitution was declared Null and Void on January 20, 2009 when Roberts swore in a usurper he knew was not qualified.
“What is being taxed”
The condition of being an adult person who exists and breathes without insurance coverage.
I thought Roberts was against courts legislating from the bench by rewriting the laws Congress wrote. That’s what he’s done here.
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).
NEVER FORGET ... it was Olympia Snow’s decision that brought it out of committee ... a “REPUBLICAN”.
can it be repealed in Congress now then a Senate vote of 51 vs 60 as it was a tax?
When the bill went to conference, did it have a House Bill Number or a Senate Bill Number?
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.
House. HR 3590, if I recall correctly.
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 1213, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congresss 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 Congresss choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congresss 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 Congresss taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congresss choice of label.