[CA Conservative]

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”.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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”.

Something of the sort must have gone on; I find it difficult to credit that all the uproar and Supreme Court hearing would not have unearthed the simple failure to initiate in the House as specified. Only now it is suddenly an issue???

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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”.

Something of the sort must have gone on; I find it difficult to credit that all the uproar and Supreme Court hearing would not have unearthed the simple failure to initiate in the House as specified. Only now it is suddenly an issue???