[SnakeDoctor]

I would’ve challenged it on the basis that a tax bill must originate in the House. Since Roberts rule this damn thing is justified under the taxing authority ... then it should be subject to the Constitutional limitations on tax bills.

But, ultimately, it’ll have to go through Roberts again. If he can make-up a ruling that this is a justified as a tax ... he can just as easily make-up one that it is a tax for the purposes of his last ruling, but not a tax for the purposes of the Constitutional provision that “tax bills must originate in the House”.

Such is the nature of rogue justices that make-up the law as they go along.

SnakeDoc

[okie01]

I would’ve challenged it on the basis that a tax bill must originate in the House. Since Roberts rule this damn thing is justified under the taxing authority ... then it should be subject to the Constitutional limitations on tax bills.

Unfortunately, the Obamacare bill passed by the Senate actually did originate in the House.

Harry Reid picked up a dead bill submitted by the House, stripped all the content out, and reintroduced it with the Obamacare verbiage. It is within his authority to do this.

So, technically, Obamacare did originate in the House. And your concern is exactly why Reid acted as he did...

[Alberta's Child]

ObamaCare actually did originate in the House. It was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (Corrupt-NY) as some kind of budget reconciliation bill months before it was passed. It had an HR (”House Resolution”) number attached to it, and all that.