Skip to comments.The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare
Posted on 09/17/2012 3:36:25 PM PDT by WilliamIII
You probably thought that once the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act last June, the Act's constitutionality would be settled.
Not a chance.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm, has opened up a new front in conservatives' never-ending struggle to wipe Obamacare off the books. Their secret weapon? The Origination Clause of Article I, section 7, which states that "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." The key idea is that the Supreme Court recently upheld the individual mandate as a tax. But if the mandate is a tax, the PLF argues, then it is a bill for raising revenue. That means that the Affordable Care Act must have begun in the House of Representatives. And it did not.
The House passed a version of health care reform on November 7, 2009, and sent it to the Senate. Senators wanted to produce their own bill. The Origination Clause, however, requires that all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, and health care reform included many new taxes, including the individual mandate. So the Senate amended another tax bill that the House had recently passed: H.R. 3590, which changed the taxation rules for servicemen and women buying new homes. It struck out the text of the existing bill, and inserted its new proposal as an amendment. This procedural maneuver is called using a "shell bill." This version of health care reform passed the Senate 60-39 on December 24, 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Seems pretty cut and dry. Unless the court wants to ignore the constitution. Nah, they wouldn’t do that.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Hey Roberts, explain to me where in the eff in the enumerated powers the federal government has the power to tax for purposes other than what is listed?
The plain answer is..he can not explain it, and they can NOT do it.
I’m afraid this is a dead issue. It will take a massive effort from both houses of Congress to get rid of ZeroCare.
Even If this rather tenuous looking basis for an argument Makes it to SCOTUS, remember that CJ Roberts shafted us by declaring, in effect, that Congress, now owns the Power to Tax us because of our Inactivity in entering the stream of Commerce.
If Roberts and the others have the gall to shovel That onto our plates, the House of Origination isn’t going to cut any mustard with him Either.
What we Need, is Originalist SCOTUS appointments, and we’re Not going to get them overnight and without a royal tooth and nail vetting battle.
Unless Roberts is impeached. ... SOS.
Roberts and the liberal 5 will find a way to outfox these guys, IF they even listen to the argument. Our best hope is Romney and that is no sure thing either,even if he is elected.
This is a waste of time. The Constitution specifically says that the Senate has the right to amend revenue bills, which is what this is.
Roberts will say that while it is indeed a tax, it is not designed to raise revenue, only to cover costs of the program.
our only chance there is with Ryan, he said last week on this issue they will repeal, then as the crowd was cheering he quietly said, “That is a Fact”, as if to reinforce to us his determination to do so. I do believe that man.
This argument is not compelling under the current circumstances (demi-tyrant as President and eminent election) nor is anyone in congress capable of advancing the argument.
While he's at it, perhaps he can explain how, if the ACA it is a tax, the administrative branch then has powers to issue waivers at its discretion. Seems a total violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I don’t think that it will be as difficult as people think to get rid of 0-care. Although the legal and legislative challenges are daunting, the plan is simply economically unsustainable and impractable. With so many regulations, low reimbursement and rationing boards, providers will simply drop out of the system and create access problems so great that the system will implode. Meanwhile, costs will go out of control because of bureaucratic expansion that has nothing to do with health care delivery. A reversion to a direct pay system would be more likely at that point because the Federal government will simply not have enough money to enact a top down and fully socialized system.
Damn those conservatives, wanting to follow the Constitution and all....
I am shaking with excitement!!
In short..the whole Dam thing is unconstitutional and I demanded-I actually called my rep to demand that they haul Roberts in front of congress to have him explain how he came to that ruling. They can do that.
The PLF has won more cases that are complicated than many realize. Using a bill that is essentially a ‘shell bill’ to write Obamacare & get it thru the Senate is dead illegal.
In my opinion, Justice Roberts isn't a fool. He didn't get where his is by playing the fool either. He backed the Obama administration into saying it was a tax. I'm sure Roberts is (was) wondering when someone was going to set the hook and reel it in. He can't advise any body or organization that Obamacare isn't legal, he just left a welcome mat out with big flashing neon lights. If this doesn't work, Obamacare was passed on a "Reconciliation Vote". A reconciliation vote can only used for budget bills, so there is another angle to kill Obamacare.
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.