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.
You are correct. The Senate took The Servicemembers Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, H.R. 3590, and stripped it.
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.
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.
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?
You forgot strong arm tactics and blackmail.
Indeed. Why should they start abiding by the constitution?
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.
Considering the large number of waivers issued and the remaining organizations to which 0bamaCare is applied, is 0bamaCare a Bill of Attainder?
These people don’t care about technicalities, and neither do they care about legality.
(The rule of law ain’t no maw.)
As a trial run for arguing that the Second Amendment is just a technicality?
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.
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.
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.)
It's old, it's outdated, it was written by a bunch of rich old white men.
Who cares about the Constitution?
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.
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..
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.
I have become convinced that Roberts was in some way coerced to change his position. Either threatening him or his family. I have never believed that such things actually take place, especially at that high a level, but when you look at his orginal declarations during the case and in the original majority opinion he originally wrote, there is no other logical reason he would have decided to change his mind and use the circuitous reasoning he eventually used in his second majority opinion. It simply makes no sense. At first I just accepted that he was afraid his court would be viewed as too political and changed, but even if he did have that change of heart, his decision would not have been such a mess.
Roberts already made it crystal clear that he will uphold Obamacare based on politics, not law. Unless he has somehow changed his mind in the interim, this is a waste of time.
it’s getting clearer by the day that it’s just a question of time before the SHTF and the people will take back DC. Once that happens it would do to amend the Constitution so all elected officials can not exclude themselves from any laws they pass. They get no special treatment or perks in any way, period. All newly proposed legislation before voted upon would have to first pass Constitutional scrutiny.
Duh!!! That’s why Roberts let it pass. That’s how it is supposed to work
I do not trust this Supreme Court to rule the right way a second time, considering they blew it the first time.
Prediction: John Roberts will decide to rule that for purposes of this bill the Senate is actually the House.
As I recall, this was discussed earlier and the Senate took an existing House effort and turned it into Obama Care. It did originate in the House as I recall