Skip to comments.The Origination Clause: Die Harder, ObamaCare!
Posted on 10/19/2012 12:29:44 AM PDT by WilliamIII
Chief Justice John Roberts could begin his next Supreme Court decision regarding ObamaCare with the following statements: "Whoops, ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As ObamaCare involves taxes, the House -- not the Senate -- was constitutionally responsible for originating ObamaCare." If Roberts agrees with the Pacific Legal Foundation's (PLF) recent case against ObamaCare, then Roberts, as suggested above, could reverse his decision in June 2012 that most of ObamaCare is constitutional. On September 11, 2012, PLF sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that ObamaCare violates the Constitution's Origination Clause, which reads as follows: 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. PLF argues that ObamaCare's Individual Mandate, which Roberts labeled a tax in his June 2012 decision, significantly raises government revenue. The Individual Mandate "taxes" individuals $695 and families $2,085 per year for not purchasing health insurance plans. In Roberts' words, the mandate will produce "at least some revenue for the Government ... about $4 billion per year by 2017.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_origination_clause_die_harder_obamacare.html#ixzz29jAtFHR6
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
After I got done cussing at Roberts, I began to wonder if he wasn’t playing a version of rope-a-dope with this.
The case they decided was not brought to SCOTUS on the basis of origination - and they did not rule on that aspect ...
This case may give them a second bite of the apple from the “other side” ...
Tonight’s roast of the candidates is well worth watching.
Pretty cool they all get together in the same room (Barky Obama, Mitten, Piss Matthews, George Soreazz, etc.).
Only in America.
Romneys great roast of Obama.
Do you think John Roberts ruled in accordance with the original understanding of the Constitution, yes or no?
Do you think it is proper for a Justice to play rope-a-dope instead of ruling according to the Constitution, yes or no?
John Roberts can wallow in the sty of his own making.
Optimism is a wonderful thing.
Mrs. LVD (and about 50+ other medical professionals) were told at a medical seminar recently that Obamacare stops chemotherapy at age 74. One can still have this procedure, but is responsible for the costs.
Mrs. LVD also commented, "..most medical professionals that attended were apparently hearing this for the first time, judging from the chatter"!
I bet as time goes on and Obamacare is scrutinized we discover lots of surprises we didn’t know are in there that are going to really piss the Anerican people off. If it weren’t for Obama having a family I’d want him tried for treason and hung.
It was originated in the house as some random bill. When the senate got said random bill, they gutted it and shoved 0bamacare into the cover as an “edit”.
***PLF argues that ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate, which Roberts labeled a tax in his June 2012 decision, significantly raises government revenue.***
The convoluted process of raising taxes to pay for another Federal Government program in order to regulate/control yet another enterprise.
Food production and distribution: Check
Entertainment: Check (FCC)
Because Ocare is a tax I think it will only take 50 Senators to defeat it.
Add the 3.8% federal tax on real estate transactions.
Ok, I’ll play along...
“Do you think John Roberts ruled in accordance with the original understanding of the Constitution, yes or no?” Yes.
“Do you think it is proper for a Justice to play rope-a-dope instead of ruling according to the Constitution, yes or no?” That’s a nice textbook logical trap you have there; go lookup “false dilemma”. He could have done both.