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.
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.
Exactly, exactly.
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. Munoz–Flores, 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. We’re 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.
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.