Skip to comments.The Individual Mandate "Tax" Did Not Originate In The House
Posted on 06/29/2012 2:53:03 PM PDT by sourcery
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not originate in the House. The bill that did originate in the House, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, did not contain any mandate fining (or "taxing," as the will now refer to it in Washington,) for failure to have health insurance.
That was Constitutionally acceptable during the period when fines for what someone has not done were still fines, and had not been converted into taxes by having the Supreme Court amend the Constitution sua sponte.
But as a tax, the mandate converts the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into a bill that raises revenue.
Article I, Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
That makes Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional, because it's a bill that raises revenue that did not originate in the House.
Okay, assuming this has substance and basis in law, what are our gutless elected officials/representatives going to do about it??
Keep hiding under their desks while a lawless anti-American administration keeps destroying American individual soverignty and everthing else that makes America great?
The money goes to insurance companies . . .
The money goes to insurance companies . . .
So can the bill be declared null and void for failure to follow proper procedure?
NO, the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional.
Are the exemptions that have been given legal?
Only Congress can tax, and only Congress can declare exemptions.
Once SEIU realizes they are no longer exempt, they will not be for this just like the rest of us.
Didn’t you get the memo that came with the opinion?
The old Constitution is over. Done. Dead. A joke. A piece of worthless paper that’s strictly for conservative saps.
The new Constitution is whatever we say it is.
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.
I’d like to see the thoughts of my favorite FR lawyer on this one.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the issue of whether or not the Act is Unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House. That issue was not before the Court, nor did yesterday's opinion address it.
The penalty (or “tax” as Roberts re-wrote it) goes to the IRS and Department of the Treasury.
In other words, I am completely correct. The bill that originated in the House raised no revenue. Case closed.
Bcsco posted the history and the bill numbers earlier today. The house bill was voted down. Then the Senate produced their own bill with a different number. It was not reconcilled but forced through the House with the midnight vote.
All the extralegal shenanigans by the Obother administration and his Rat myrmidons could fill a book.
It shouldn’t matter that the bill came from the House. The question is where did the penalty come from.
Perhaps a lawsuit should be filed. Perhaps Roberts missed this in his zeal to uphold the law.
We need to find the rules both houses to see what that procedure might be....or if there is precedence.
So, you just think they asked the wrong question?
Please, take the tin foil hat off.
Roberts said, We are not going to save you from your stupid political mistakes, you figure that out.
We get the government we deserve, collectively!
If the Court missed the fact that this “tax” did not properly originate in the House, it is going to have to address this in another opinion to maintain any credibility as constitutional arbiter.
The House bill was used as a shell bill, and the text was added in the Senate. It doesn’t matter to these corrupt jokers what the text of the bill was when the House passed it.
They’ve done this shell bill trick before. Your POV is not a winner.
So take it to court!
I’m sure the constitution will prevail!
To the corrupt class, it only matters that the bill number originated in the House. They make the rules.
And you don't understand that without a pleading by one of the parties before the court, the court has no jurisdiction to rule as though the pleading had in fact been made.
The legal argument I have presented was not one of the pleadings made by any of the parties. That's why the Court did not consider it officially, nor they discuss it in their opinion. It was not a matter before the court.
I have found a potential problem with making a challenge under this clause of the Constitution. In prior cases, the Supreme Court already watered down this Consitutional requirement, called the “Origination Clause”:
A statute which raises funds to support a particular program, as opposed to raising revenue for the general Treasury, is not considered a bill for raising revenue within the meaning of the Origination Clause. United States v. MunozFlores, 495 U.S. 385, 398 (1990).
Only if it could be shown Obamacare penalties are not used to pay for this program would this challenge appear to have a chance of success.
See my post 25. I agree with you based on the text of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court appears to have already turned the “Origination Clause” into mush.
The Supreme Court has been grinding up the Constitution for decades now, and putting it out back in the form of unrecognizable sh*t. Including with yesterday’s opinion.
Read what I wrote. Were saying the same thing only reaching a different conclusion. The original House bill (HR 3962) passed the House but was completely restructured in the Senate and their bill became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590).
HR 3962 (original bill) should have been amended by the Senate then sent back to the House for reconciliation, but never was. The House later adopted HR3590 (the rewritten, separate bill) that originated in the Senate. The House used the reconciliation process in amending HR3590, but it should have been the other way around.
The point is, the democrats used improper procedures in getting this legislation passed. On top of the fact they obscured everything by rushing it through, insisting on it not be read before the vote. The whole thing was a big head fake.
Nor did they deal with the issue of which house the bill originated in...OTOH there are several other cases in the system. VA is also a “state” case, but IIRC a small business case and maybe othrs.
Read my post #25. Supreme Court ruled in earlier cases the Origination Clause” (revenue bills must originate in the House) does not apply to bills that raise revenues to fund programs, only for raising general revenues.
Sorry that was Bcsco’s earlier post.
But the Bill is not for raising revenue, it is a legislative penalty (i.e., a Bill of Attainder).
Besides, if it is a tax, if it’s not an excise, not an impost, not apportioned, and not a tax on income, Congress has no power to levy it.
So, how did Roberts word his opinion? Does he say whether it’s funds for programs or general revenue?
I’m not a lawyer. Well, jeez neither is anyone else who seem to be throwing out their opinion.
I do understand the pleadings of parties, but you seem to disregard the courts duty to not re-write the law(although it may seem that Roberts did just this).
I think, in Roberts defense, he just said, this is stuff the legislative branch needs to figure out, while rebuke the citizenry by saying, this is what you get when you vote the way you do.
I’m not saying I like his decision, but the more I look at it, I understand it.
Quit waiting for everyone else to bail your sorry ass out and do something about it, rather than just whining like a liberal on FR!
He didn’t address this. The question is where is this money going? It goes to the Treasury. But if it can be shown that the money is for this program, this argument won’t work.
Wrote congressman. My hope is the House will go on the Offense.
If zero has to hire thousands of new IRS agents, the $ probably goes to the treasury.
Yeah, just call him Gadianton Harry.
And I was pointing out that his post wasn’t accurate. I pinged him on that post and this one.
And I appreciate that. I was unaware of the court’s previous affect on constitutional original intent.
You had inquired of the possibility of a lawsuit, and I replied suggesting the possibility of Horowitz or Judicial watch...
Who collects the "penalty" for no policy?
What about the "germaneness" of the amendment to the intent of the original bill. Isn't that a rule?
The money goes to insurance companies<<
Who collects the "penalty" for no policy?
IT'S A TAX
First, I tried doing my own research on this, and Google FAILed. So, I broadened my search and found the research had already been done.
When I first learned of the shell bill trick WRT ObamaCare back in 2009, I yelled at Reid through my computer screen. Didn’t work.
Out of curiosity, when you broadened your search, where did you go beyond Google? Did you use proprietary databases, or something available to the public?
IIRC, I just changed the search terms. I don’t recall the details. I’m not an accomplished searcher, but more like the blind squirrel. LOL.
The problem finding the info on this apparently stems from the fact that the original House bill was changed by replacing the text with the ObamaCare text. The original bill text is difficult to find, and that makes it seem like it was always the ObamaCare bill. Imagine that.
BTW, at least for now, I’ve decided to pay the tax rather than buy ObamaCare insurance.
Oh, and Harry Reid never changes his underwear.