How A Legal Technicality Could Unravel Obamacare

Business Insider ^ | Dec 3 2012 | Lucas Kawa

[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 hurdles—including a challenge that only could have been made after the Supreme Court’s 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.

[Scoutmaster]

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.

You are correct. The Senate took The Servicemembers Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, H.R. 3590, and stripped it.

[ClearCase_guy]

It will be a sad day if that is allowed to "get around" this Constitutional requirement.

Why not have a judge sign a warrant to search a known crack house in East St Louis -- then go off and "modify" the warrant and search any house you please? Letter of the law? Spirit of the law? The Senate definitely violated at least one of these.

[SW6906]

"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."

But this isn't a clear-cut simple little House rules procedural issue. This is about what the Constitution clearly says: tax bills must begin in the House.

[PGR88]

I always wondered why no one has sued Obamacare under the “equal protection” clause.

McDonalds and other big, connected and well-funded corporations have waivers or exemptions. Why can not my small business get a waiver? Isn’t that ipso facto unequal protection and unequal application of the law?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Deception, corruption, lies, trickery, false representation, bait and switch.. The usual Alinsky tactics.

You forgot strong arm tactics and blackmail.

[VoiceOfBruck]

Technicalities don’t matter in a dictatorship.

Indeed. Why should they start abiding by the constitution?

[xzins]

The Senate did take a house bill and change it so much that it was unrecognizable, really. That, however, is the technicality upon which the court will look. They will say that technically, obamacare did begin in the house.

[twister881]

Codeword: IPAB

[Uncle Miltie]

Considering the large number of waivers issued and the remaining organizations to which 0bamaCare is applied, is 0bamaCare a Bill of Attainder?

[ripley]

These people don’t care about technicalities, and neither do they care about legality.

(The rule of law ain’t no maw.)

IMHO

[RedMDer]

Resolved from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3590)
Entitled
"An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to modify first-time home buyers credit...

THIS IS HOW OBAMA WILL RULE

[MMaschin]

"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”."


Even if that is the case, direct taxes are required to be apportioned, and if the mandate is a tax, it is an unapportioned direct tax.

The problem with arguing the Constitutionality of a tax, you need to wait until the tax is already in effect before you can argue against it's Constitutionality.

[danielmryan]

They will argue it’s just a technicality, and ignore the point all together.

As a trial run for arguing that the Second Amendment is just a technicality?

[Uncle Miltie]

With all the Waivers issued, what about filing suit on an Equal Protection of the Law basis?

Massive Waivers prove 0bamaCare is unequally applied law, contrary to the 14th Amendment.

[cableguymn]

You are correct. This method may or may not pass legal muster at the supreme court.

I am afraid this case was not the one to test the theory though. I suspect the gut and replace will be upheld and used again in the future.

[danielmryan]

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.

Nope, you have no standing. You merely obey and fork the money over.

(Sorry about sounding blithe, but it sounds like the punch line to a Readers Digest joke.)

[elkfersupper]

Constitution? What Constitution?

It's old, it's outdated, it was written by a bunch of rich old white men.

Who cares about the Constitution?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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.”

Didnt they come up with a loophole for this, by getting the House to pass the exact same bill as the Senate did? The other trick was to gut a bill already sent over and replace the details. there were a total of 3 bills passed by each house, but 2 of each matched in each house signed by O, because of budget reconciliation.

I was thinking about this because Obama and Reid are demanding that the House pass that tax bill that the Senate already passed, so its exactly the same crap.

[joe fonebone]

well, to put it simply, you cannot for damages if you have not been damaged yet..

2014, that is when the first payments will have to be made, and that is when it will go to court..

[danielmryan]

These people don’t care about technicalities, and neither do they care about legality.

And they've believed that in their sneaky little hearts for decades. Remember that blather about "Man, through Society, will finally master his Destiny"? It doesn't take much parsing to see that the blather-dispensers are calling for the "Rule of Man" - i.e., the rule of men.