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

Skip to comments.

Did SCOTUS set up a new attack on ACA? Any tax must originate in House (vanity)

Posted on 06/28/2012 5:26:30 PM PDT by TigerClaws

Despite claims to the contrary, the SCOTUS has ruled the ACA imposes a "tax". With the SCOTUS ruling, this is ironclad.

What's also ironclad is that -per the Constitution- ALL taxation legislation MUST begin in the House. The ACA began in the Senate.

Since such a tax isn't really illegal until it's collected, the moment the IRS tries to do so someone will file against it.

quote: Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

With that wording, the Mandate is definitely shot down but considering that it's just a part of the overall bill that introduced it, it's very conceivable that the whole bill will be struck down.

Thoughts?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; obamacare; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 5:26:41 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Obamacare was passed first in the House. The Senate then voted to adopt the House version through Reconciliation, thereby allowing the Democrats to avoid a filibuster and cram it through the Senate with only 51 votes.


2 posted on 06/28/2012 5:30:06 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

I like this!


3 posted on 06/28/2012 5:31:43 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Wrong, tax bills now originate at the SCOTUS.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 5:32:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Any tax? such as this one which was passed by teh Democrat controlled house?


5 posted on 06/28/2012 5:33:08 PM PDT by e_castillo (Drill here drill now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Thoughts?

Yep. The Party’s over. Turn out the lights.


6 posted on 06/28/2012 5:34:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Now all the R’s need is 51 to repeal it.


7 posted on 06/28/2012 5:35:53 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
I don't know about your specific legal argument here, but I've been wondering for months now if there is a whole new set of cases to come out in the Federal courts as different elements of ObamaCare are implemented.

Any argument related to taxation -- even if it doesn't involve this specific point -- is an example of this. There are some parts of it that can't legally be challenged yet because nobody has any legal standing to challenge them right now.

8 posted on 06/28/2012 5:36:50 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

We can’t put the entire weight of our dysfunctional republic on John Roberts back. Even for as a weak vessel as Roberts I can’t blame him for taking a pass. But, wouldn’t be great if this little mustard seed of jurisprudence — the mandate is actually a tax — could grow into something powerful and redeeming.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 5:37:40 PM PDT by Calusa (The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles. Quoth Bob Dylan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Tomorrow, I plan to check your facts. My memory differs, though, and a few other codgers with me tonight remember this bill initializing in the Senate, although a tapdance was slapped together so that it appeared to be a House bill. The way you describe it was the way it was supposed to be handled.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 5:39:20 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

I believe you have that backwards. The Senate bill became law, therefore the “tax” originated in the Senate not the House.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 5:41:30 PM PDT by callisto (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

What classification of tax can it be other than a penalty tax?


12 posted on 06/28/2012 5:42:18 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Obamacare was passed first in the House. The Senate then voted to adopt the House version through Reconciliation, thereby allowing the Democrats to avoid a filibuster and cram it through the Senate with only 51 votes.

True. But that brings up another point: How can a regulatory agency (HHS) grant waivers to a "tax" imposed by Congress (to follow the SCOTUS interpretation)?

The exemptions require immediate challenge. Could the Dept. of Agriculture begin granting waivers to personal income tax? Could the EPA begin granting waivers to capital gains taxes? If the mandate is in fact a tax, how can a gov't agency grant waivers to said tax? Not even the IRS can do so - an act of Congress is required.

13 posted on 06/28/2012 5:42:36 PM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The Senate gutted a bill passed by the house and inserted the language of ObamaCare.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 5:45:38 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Any argument related to taxation"

And this is the beauty of the proposition. Taxation authority is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Congress, specifically the House, can no more delegate its authority in this area than either the Executive or SC in theirs.

Assume for the moment that the DHHS can continue to issue waivers, exemptions, etc. Then what is to stop any executive, at any level of government, from exercising the same discretion with regard to income taxes, property taxes, etc? Where does it stop?

It doesn't stop, which is why all federal tax laws must be passed by a legislative body representing a majority of the people. Sure, Congress has the power, but how are they going to wield it? Now that the cat's out of the bag, every exemption, every waiver, every rate increase, every kickback has to go through the House.

Are people beginning to realize the effect of moving Otax out of the back room, which enjoyed -0- oversight and 100% discretion under commerce clause provisions, and out into the broader debate?

15 posted on 06/28/2012 5:47:53 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
I predict that this law will be so flagrantly and regularly violated -- or even circumvented through legal means -- that it will never be enforceable.

The more I read about this, the more I suspect Chief Justice Roberts basically looked at this heap of sh!t and tossed it back to the American people so they could do with it whatever they want -- either by pressuring their elected representatives to overturn it, or by ignoring it.

16 posted on 06/28/2012 5:47:57 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: callisto

Did this bill not go to conference committee for reconciliation? Game over...this is the bill.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 5:50:11 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: callisto; Bubba_Leroy; Resettozero

The constitutional requirement for revenue bills to originate in the house is a joke.’

This scam has existed for a long time.

The house can pass house bill 001 to rename a post office to honor Mickey Mouse.

The senate can delete all of the language in house bill 001 and insert revenue or taxing language in it’s place.

Since the bill “originated” in the house; then all is well.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 5:52:52 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Thanks for the info guys and gals.

Really the political solution is the ONLY solution.


19 posted on 06/28/2012 5:56:01 PM PDT by TigerClaws (He)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

In other words, he abdicated his reponsibility. Brave Justice, like sh**.


20 posted on 06/28/2012 5:56:34 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
ALL taxation legislation MUST begin in the House.

Not according to Roberts. Or to the communists Administration we have now.

21 posted on 06/28/2012 5:56:56 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pointsal

The House passed a bill. The Senate gutted it and inserted a largevportion of what is “Obamacare.” The House “deemed” the Senate bil to be “passed.” This was discussed ad infinumat the time.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 5:59:44 PM PDT by callisto (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: callisto

Argh... darn typos.


23 posted on 06/28/2012 6:01:10 PM PDT by callisto (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I suspect Chief Justice Roberts basically looked at this heap of sh!t and tossed it back to the American people so they could do with it whatever they want -- either by pressuring their elected representatives to overturn it, or by ignoring it.

Well they ain't enough $$$ to fund the damn thing
The country is BROKE

The GOP and the PACS better start taking out ads to that effect
24 posted on 06/28/2012 6:03:09 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

You have a President bypassing Congress to develop new legislation through the executive regulatory branch, Senators passing things that should be done in the House, House member who refuse to do their jobs in exercising their Congressional oversight authority, and a Supreme Court that is rewriting legal arguments to pass legislation rather than interpret the constitutionality of the legislation. Nobody really seems to care about carrying out Constitutional procedures. It’s become a situation where everyone does whatever they want. Total constitutional breakdown.


25 posted on 06/28/2012 6:04:22 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
No, he didn't. It's not his role to determine what the hell Congress meant to say in 2,800 pages of that monstrosity.

In my opinion, any obligations a U.S. Supreme Court justice ever had in this regard went right out the window when that dingbat Nancy Pelosi got up on television and insisted that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

A Federal judge shouldn't even waste a minute of his time reading a legal brief in a case involving a Federal statute that the U.S. Speaker of the House didn't even bother reading before voting on it. He's basically telling all U.S. citizens that we get the government we deserve -- and it ain't up to him to deal with the heap of sh!t we've made for ourselves.

P.S. This doesn't mean he's washed his hands of all this and walked away from it. This was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the ObamaCare bill overall. The ruling has pretty much ensured that there will be endless legal challenges to it as each new provision comes into play and more and more people will have the legal standing to challenge those elements of it.

Like I said before ... by 2014 this law will be so frequently violated and circumvented that it won't even mean anything. I predict there will be entire new industries built by teams of lawyers, doctors and CPAs who show their clients how to get around its most idiotic provisions.

26 posted on 06/28/2012 6:05:31 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: TigerClaws

Salve

While many run on emotions, and surely they are right to be upset of this, this battle might be lost, but war is still ongoing.

I would like to bring something to this equation, from different prospective.

I call it Avalanche scenario.

1. With this ruling, taxes will have to be raised in order to compensate for all the suppose services giving to those who can’t or will not be able to have Health proper insurance.

2. Problem – sole purposes of business is to make profit, if small businesses, and I would like to emphasize this can’t or will not be able to afford taxes, or will decide to pass those taxes on products which will be the case, costumers will be hit in their packet harder as will others, who believe in free trading of assets.

3. After while majority of people will left work force for reasons that if you make 1300$ a week or two weeks and your check after deduction of this expenditure comes to 700$ that person better and will move from be a producer to be on government sponsors programs, therefore unemployment will rise, less revenue’s will be giving to Government, and you will have more people on paper money then real money. Absolute destruction of private enterprise.

4. Doctors as well private physician’s will have no choice but either to close their private clinics and move off shore, or removed themselves from system all together, this will hit preventive care as well all serious medical conditions, and most insurances will either not cover the treatments or will be force to raise premiums on those who have and work hard.

5. Majorities of companies will not be able to sustain heavy adding of services into insurances as many workers will decide to on government bailout then work, for it makes no sense to work, if you can receive same plan as those who do.

6. This will have unprecedented effect of effecting any business abilities in USA, as it will be too expensive to conduct research and development of new effective drugs, and other medicine, when majority will be on subsidies and will hamper on capabilities for Pharmaceutical companies to introduce new products, even with expenditure of governmental breaks out.

7. At the end once Avalanche process is finish, you have a good idea what will happen to rest of the country –…….

Now, this battle is not over, there are still some choices left, limited yes, they are still there. Now is up to you to unite and bring true conservatives to Both Chambers of your government. Real ones who know how to fight a real fight not a girly stance.

If I have offended any one, my apology, but more you cry less you will pee, time to start cleaning the house friends your style in your house.

Merci.


28 posted on 06/28/2012 6:09:00 PM PDT by MCSP2008 (Romanian native > ESL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

**Did SCOTUS set up a new attack on ACA? Any tax must originate in House**

Hammer meets nail. Is Roberts smart to set it up this way or what?


29 posted on 06/28/2012 6:09:17 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Good discussion from a reputable source:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/

“The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.”

ALSO:

“The silver lining here procedurally is that, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.”


30 posted on 06/28/2012 6:09:22 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

I musta been absent that day in class when the teacher taught this lesson. Just goes to show: you never know.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 6:11:40 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I had a similar thought, only that Roberts was too much of a coward to do the right thing and didn’t want to be held responsible so he inserted language that blatantly tells citizens to ‘take back your country’.


32 posted on 06/28/2012 6:12:10 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The more I read about this, the more I suspect Chief Justice Roberts basically looked at this heap of sh!t and tossed it back to the American people so they could do with it whatever they want -- either by pressuring their elected representatives to overturn it, or by ignoring it.

I tend to agree, to a degree. What I can't figure out is why CJ Roberts would want his court to go down in history as another one that rubber stamps federal will. He had the opportunity to send it down in flames (He cast the deciding vote on the mandate). I'm not going to speculate that he was influenced or throw wild conspiracy theories against the wall. Roberts has always had a reputation of lending a great deal of leeway to legislative authorities, but this takes it a bit too far.

33 posted on 06/28/2012 6:12:48 PM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MCSP2008
I have a different take on this whole thing. It reminds me of a major highway project in New Jersey some years ago where the state and/or a toll road authority floated about $400 million to do the project. Several years later, the $400 million was all gone and they hadn't laid a single bit of asphalt or concrete for the new highway.

There were no allegations of corruption or mismangement in that situation, either. They simply spent many years and $400 million fighting all of the legal battles and lawsuits that came out of the project.

This is how ObamaCare will eventually die -- because it's not something that can be sustained over time. In a few years you're going to have hordes of Americans who are taxed to the gills to pay for this sh!t, while they rightly complain that the quality of their health care has gone into the sh!tter.

34 posted on 06/28/2012 6:14:25 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Hmmmmm..........intriguing theory you have there. It was pimped as anything but a tax on all levels, and by the usual suspects. If the SCOTUS only upheld it's constitutionality under Article I, Section 8 but it was demonstrably crafted, worded, and voted upon as falling under the province of the Commerce Clause by the then-Marxist controlled House.......too schmart by half?

Verrrrry interesting.......

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

--H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920


35 posted on 06/28/2012 6:18:59 PM PDT by Viking2002 ("If you're gonna hang out in places like this, wear a badge on your didey.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
This reminds me of a fascinating legal argument I read in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore in late 2000. The author made a compelling case that the U.S. Supreme Court blundered badly in that case -- not in their ultimate decision, but in even taking the case at all. His point was that the U.S. Constitution has specific provisions that govern the scenario the country was facing at the time. Florida's electoral votes should not have been counted at all if they couldn't certify their election results on time, which meant the president would be chosen in a special Congressional election (Bush would have won anyway).

His general theme in the article was that we've built ourselves a highly dysfunctional, stunted political system -- liberals and conservatives alike -- by turning to courts to resolve disputes that the judicial branch is ill-equipped to handle and has no business even dealing with.

I would suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't be dealing with cases like this one brought by attorneys general in individual states. Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case filed by one or more states about Federal authority in any given matter is basically a concession by those states to the supreme authority of the Federal government.

36 posted on 06/28/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Sorry.. He hit his thumb with that hammer and missed the nail.

This started in the house. The senate gutted a house bill and stuck obama care in it.


37 posted on 06/28/2012 6:27:30 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Salve

And I will assure you that 400 Million $ of project went to Billions of more in Government for Interstate Highways and more.

Same story, 5 years plans (I am very well adverse in those :}}}). I know what you talking about very well.

Most important is —war is going on, time to clean the house, there are still small options left, don’t give up...all will be good.

Merci.


38 posted on 06/28/2012 6:44:49 PM PDT by MCSP2008 (Romanian native > ESL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
So basically what the Court has ruled ? is ? that ? the House of Representatives can vote this TAX down ? and there is nothing the president or the Democrat controlled Senate ( that is ? until the next session of Congress ) can not do anything about it ?

So ? if the Republican controlled House vote's Obama care down as a tax ? no more Obamacare ?
or ? is that until another Democrat controlled house brings it back up for a vote ?

Should ? Could ? the house put in wording that if Obama care if brought back again ? it would have to go through the same processes as a new bill as it went through the first time as a vote in the house and senate and has to be signed by a president ?
39 posted on 06/28/2012 6:48:00 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

You aren’t thinking Chicago style politics that Obama might play......what if Roberts was shown a live TV feed of his children tied up and his wife with a gun to her head.

Think the way Obama does here.


40 posted on 06/28/2012 6:49:44 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Carry me back
And 51 Senators to vote to convict Eric Holder of Contempt of Congress.
I say ? let the Democrats drag their feet on this until the next session of Congress starts by then ? hopefully after this election we will have 51 ? 52 Republican Senators.
41 posted on 06/28/2012 6:50:26 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I would suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't be dealing with cases like this one brought by attorneys general in individual states. Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case filed by one or more states about Federal authority in any given matter is basically a concession by those states to the supreme authority of the Federal government.

Exactly. The Warren court expanded the authority of the judiciary and the federal government to such an extreme that it has become a run away beast. The states should never need to petition a court in opposition to any federal authority or statute, the 10th amendment merely gives each state the right to ignore that which it opposes.

The differences between the states gave Americans freedom; if I don't like it in CA, I can move to NV. With all states homogenized under an all powerful federal authority, freedoms are further restricted by the removal of choices.

Unfortunately, every conceivable rational argument against Obamacare and the ever expanding federal authority is muted by the apparatus that must be endured to get them heard. It is time for dramatic change - the government has become so distanced and out of touch with the population and today, by default, SCOTUS has rubber stamped unlimited federal authority (essentially rendering itself to be of no future use - the fed has the power, there is nothing further to render Constitutional opinions on.).

42 posted on 06/28/2012 7:04:13 PM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Wrong. Reid took a House bill that had no chance of passing in the Senate, lopped off all of the actual text in that House-originated bill, added all of the ObamaCare text and passed it.

Thus, technically, the ObabaCare bill, at least the HR bill number, originated in the House.

It is a corrupt way to do it, but that, in a very small nutshell, is Harry Reid.


43 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:30 PM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
“The silver lining here procedurally is that, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.”

Does that include the 60 needed to usually bring a bill to the floor?

44 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:41 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Remember ? it was the Supreme Court that had to stop the runaway recount stealing of the election by the liberals and Al Gore in Florida back in 2000.... perhaps Roberts is keeping all his bases covered but yet at the same time leaving the door open for “ THE PEOPLE “ to take back their country.


45 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:49 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: semantic
Assume for the moment that the DHHS can continue to issue waivers, exemptions, etc. Then what is to stop any executive, at any level of government, from exercising the same discretion with regard to income taxes, property taxes, etc? Where does it stop?

It doesn't stop, which is why all federal tax laws must be passed by a legislative body representing a majority of the people. Sure, Congress has the power, but how are they going to wield it? Now that the cat's out of the bag, every exemption, every waiver, every rate increase, every kickback has to go through the House.

Since it's a tax, can't the R controlled house exempt everyone NOW?

46 posted on 06/28/2012 7:11:59 PM PDT by Principled (It's not enthusiasm for Romney, it's grim determination to remove Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
So he basically take's out of the Healthcare bill the very tool the Democrats use and abuse and say it's a tax and boots the ball back to the House's hand's and " THE PEOPLE " hands to do with it anyway they want with it and run with it.

NO MORE COMMENCE CLAUS hankypanky anymore.

Robert's Hail Mary quarterback pass to the wide receiver the house and " THE PEOPLE " .
47 posted on 06/28/2012 7:17:07 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2013 VOTE DOWN THIS NEW TAX ! WE CAN’T AFFORD IT WE ARE BROKE !!


48 posted on 06/28/2012 7:18:54 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I don’t know, just quoting what was at the link - earlier, Michelle Bachmann said we need 50+1, not 60 to repeal.


49 posted on 06/28/2012 7:21:57 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
So he basically take's out of the Healthcare bill the very tool the Democrats use and abuse and say it's a tax and boots the ball back to the House's hand's and " THE PEOPLE " hands to do with it anyway they want with it and run with it.

All he's done is reward the Dem's dirty Machiavellian tactics that got this passed. It's still the law of the land for God's sake!

He should have "thrown it back" to the Congress by saying, "This law is stricken as an unconstitutional mandate as passed by Congress. If you want the law to stand as a tax, then pass it as a tax, which you didn't do the first time."

50 posted on 06/28/2012 7:22:50 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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