Skip to comments.How A Legal Technicality Could Unravel Obamacare
Posted on 12/03/2012 11:24:59 AM PST by WilliamIII
Obamacare supporters rejoiced in June when the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. could use its taxing authority to mandate that most people buy health insurance.
But their celebrations may have been a bit premature.
The Affordable Care Act faces other legal hurdlesincluding a challenge that only could have been made after the Supreme Courts ruling.
The right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation amended its challenge to the ACA after the Supreme Court upheld the insurance mandate under Congress taxing powers.
The group's challenge turns on the Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which requires that bills for raising revenue start in the House of Representatives.
Problem is, the group argues, Obamacare started in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The Leftist Democrats will say “That’s old news”. They will argue it’s just a technicality, and ignore the point all together.
It is a procedural technicality which will be ignored (or the ruling class will insist that it be ignored).
Technicalities don’t matter in a dictatorship.
I could be wrong, but my understanding of how they circumvented that requirement was by using “gut and amend” - that is, taking an unrelated bill that had been passed by the House, stripping out the original contents of the bill, and “amending” the bill to include the Obamacare language. Under this process, the bill “technically” still originated in the House. The bill then just has to go back to the House for concurrence on the “amendment”.
fubocare was written as a tax, and fubo’s own lawyer testified under oath that it was a tax...
but, is it an equitable tax?
with all the exemptions written into the bill, the first time someone has to pay it (2014) it will go to court.
either the tax is ruled unconstitutional, or those that got them there nifty exemptions will lose them..
this ain’t over by a longshot..
The court will rule that the Congress governs itself and if there is an objection on procedural grounds it must be raised within the Congress. If the rights of the House have been usurped then let the House object. Ordinary citizens have no standing to sue over such matters.
The court,as currently constituted,are in awe of the 21st Century’s Mao Tse Tung just as certainly as are about 50% of the population.Regardless of the Constitutional validity of this petition the SCOTUS will shoot it down...5 to 4.And,of course,Roberts will vote the wrong way.
I and many others here have been saying from day one that it was unconstitutionally passed.
The New Left has convinced much of our society to throw out the rule of law. The law is not just another tool for them to advance their agenda. The little people are irrelevant to them.
We live under mob rule.
Whatever the mob wants, it gets.
There’s only one problem with this analysis: the Constitution is a dead letter.
It only means what the Supreme Court says it means.
I’m not very optimistic about this mainly because all this was known at the time of the original ruling. It was still ruled constitutional.
If they ignore the fact that the Country is ruled by a kenyan would-be dictator, I’m sure where the 0bamascare monstrosity originated will also be overlooked.
How A Legal Technicality Could Unravel Obamacare
“Dr. Orly Taitz, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Dr. Taitz!”
I can see this now. Birthers (of which I am one of) going from legal technicality to the next one.
Obamacide will not be killed on a technicality. It might be mortally wounded when 20 or more states kick the legs out from under it by declining to set up exchanges at their own expense and put the burden on the Feds ..... and the ACA doesn’t provide funding for the setting up of exchanges by the Feds. Of course, the House Repubs would have to help out by starving the beast ....
The BASTARDS passed it not mentioning 'tax', then argued it as a tax before the SCOTUS who should've shot it down RIGHT THEN AND THERE.
I have NO doubt that Roberts was extorted, bribed, paid off and that there's a highly incriminating FBI file on him that was used to get him to vote the way he did. Gay bath house photos, maybe? His smile looks a bit 'sweet' if you ask me; Fruitcake alert!
The traitor Roberts won't give an argument like this a second's thought.
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.