Skip to comments.Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’
Posted on 04/01/2013 6:01:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Obamacare looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.
A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundations attorneys had their aha moment.
The court there quite explicitly says, This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax, foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Perhaps, but Satan himself is behind this, and backing 0bama, so I wouldn’t bet the farm that this attack on 0bamacare is going to get anywhere.
IIRC, the bill originated in the House, didn’t it? It was taken (and amended) by the Senate, then the House had to re-vote on the changed version, as the Senate couldn’t take any changes or go to conference because the GOP gained enough seats to filibuster it.
ya, what a brilliant idea. Why kill it then when years (and billions of dollars) later we can kill it because it was a tax that started in the senate that was placed in a stripped out house bill that means it likely started in the house but now we have to ask Roberts if that is ok.
It would be nice if Roberts had that ulterior motive, but if his intent was to squash it he could have just done it right then and there and said there was no way a government could FORCE you to buy something, and calling it a tax did not make it right, because only certain people will be ‘taxed’ which violated the fairness clause.
No, the bill originated in the Senate. The House voted on a similar version. The Senate then tacked on myriad amendments and voted on it with a very narrow majority voting Aye. They had to ramrod an unamended version through the House on the “auspices” that the Senate would simply vote through the entirety of the amended act without any changes to prevent reconciliation.
Essentially, the House and the Senate conspired to push through poor legislation, because they knew overall support wasn’t there but managed to get the bare minimum to push it through quickly.
Regardless of the history, the bill was first offered in the Senate, which is against parliamentary procedure.
I agree. No lawsuit will bring it down; however, it might bring itself down as the concrete block that broke the knat’s back of our economy, collapse of the monetary system, which unfortunately will “repeal” everthing with it.
Yep, I’ve been of the opinion, especially since Nov 2012, that they only way “out” is “through”, meaning we have to collapse and rebuild as the only way to regain our liberties in this country.
The left has just been too successful in getting large numbers looking to government as their god.
No. The bill originated in the House. However, it was an unrelated bill on veterans issues. The Senate took that bill number as a shell, substituted the healthcare language and rammed that through reconciliation. The House did ultimately vote on it... but the original language was not on the bill originated by the House.
Somebody finally woke up.
Yeah...this thing is a mess. 50 exchanges? Thy don’t even have the software developed. Why not national competition? Now after 100s of speeches they want to go on another campaign blitz. Even the nutcases at DU are having second thoughts .
How can something this rickety survive when one party constantly tries to undermine it?.... It can’t m
Nothing will kill Obamacare, nothing.
The Dems want it, the GOPe wants it, and the 47% thinks it’s the path to their goal of sitting on their butts doing nothing.
Obamacare is here, it ain’t going anywhere. I’d bet money on that.
Yeah. I personally believed that Republican leadership thought that Obamacare would get more people to vote for Romney to repeal it. It will get thrown out because it violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Obama will call that judgment “unAmerican” or some bulls***, to which the response will be “Well, you thought their FIRST ruling was correct, right?”
I think one of the many obvious scams leading to the Obamacare vote was taking a Senate bill (something about a housing benefit for veterans), gutting every single bit of that existing bill, adding the 2700+ page “amendment” known as Obamacare, and shoving it through.
That said, I have little faith that the Court will go our way on this. We know the fix was in last June, plus there seems to be a growing tendency in the now-provably-corrupted judicial system to simply say (falsely) that it’s not their job to fix Congressional “mistakes” — it’s up to the voters.
...Nothing will kill Obamacare, nothing.
When 2014 comes and premiums go up by 50%, people will be chomping at the bit to get rid of it. You might even see Democrats running on the promise of repeal by then.
We don’t even know who wrote it.
Congress does not know who wrote it!
Congress for the most part didn’t even READ IT!!!
HOW THE HELL does ANYONE determine which house it originated in???
“When 2014 comes and premiums go up by 50%, people will be chomping at the bit to get rid of it. You might even see Democrats running on the promise of repeal by then.”
The media tells the people there is no inflation. People buy groceries, I’m sure they do. It’s impossible for them to not experience the effects of inflation, I know I am experiencing it. And yet, you never hear people talk or complain about inflation.
The media ignores the rise in gas prices. The public grumbles from time to time, but largely accepts it as if it were the weather. Unlike when gas went up under Bush, and the media wanted to know what Bush was doing. The public was livid.
The media highlights the stock market and says the economy is recovering. The public ignores the job insecurity they have, the number of people they know without a job, and the dismal hiring around them. They haven’t the faintest clue that the Fed is stealing money by doing QE and propping up the market.
So, when the increases in premiums come, the media will spin it, and the public will accept it. The media is beyond corrupt, and the public is stone cold stupid.
Nothing will kill Obamacare, nothing.
After decades of the government milking us like nothing more than cows for our entire working careers, CommieCare is just the tool they need to extract the few remaining dollars from us before they put us in the ground.
Please stop using the term ObamaCare as I don’t want to spend the rest of my life being reminded of the NAPA in the White Hut.
Anyone looking to the USSC for salvation believes in the Easter Bunny.
These black robed traitors to the Constitution are nothing more than political hacks with their endless stream of 5-4 decisions.
HONEST people, well schooled in the founding of this country and a grasp of the Federalist Papers, could not consistently come up with 5-4 decisions unless they are nothing more than political hacks working for the government. The citizens be damned. The USSC judges are traitors pure and simple and should be treated as such.
If, on the other hand, our Constitution and our laws are so difficult to understand that brilliant USSC judges cannot agree what they mean, I then maintain “Ignorance of the Law” is a perfectly valid excuse and we are free to Ignore what 9 alleged “brilliant jurists” cannot agree upon.
4/9ths of us should be able to opt out of CommieCare if 4/9 ths of the most brilliant legal minds agree with us.
Gimmie a break! There is no place for the Constitution, rules or laws anymore.
With all the Roberts bashing at the time, don’t remember this particulR reasoning, although this could be a logical reason for his call.
Most folks, including some Freepers, rarely understand that reasoning and moves at the SCOTUS level are more like Chess than Checkers, except for the ultra-lib lesbo witches.
I believe, don’t quote me on this, that they cannot substantially change the language of a bill without going through committee. The more we read and know about how this bill came to life, the more corrupt it seems.
There will be PROMISES...wish we, Sometimes, could count on PROMISES being fulfilled.
It is a struggle, struggle....
True........but....The original bill in the Senate didn't mention a tax. It was a penalty if not complied with.
No shortage of ways to ignore the constitution when that is the intent of those in Congress or of the federal courts.
“I seem to recall a few people here claiming that was why Chief Justice Roberts called it a tax, so it could be smothered later on. Anyone else remember that?” I remember something to that effect....
That is entirely correct. In theory, the Supremes could rule that the Senate's replacement of a bill in whole with completely unrelated text constitutes a new bill and thus violates the Constitution's requirement that tax bills originate in the House. In practice, we'll lose on this one because it has been done and tolerated many times. It's a shame too - freedom was a wonderful idea while it lasted.
Many of us were pointing out the same thing before this abomination crawled its way through the courts!
Now that the GOP is caving on illegal immigration (Thanks Rubio!!), they will realize that the new population is going to want “free” healthcare.
Look for an “evolved” position on Obamacare from the GOP soon. Its no coincidence that the majority of the GOP did not support defunding it.
No Roberts called it a tax because it was and it was argued by Obama’s lawyers as a tax. He didn’t care how Congress made their sausage. Obama’s lawyers argued tax and it was published that they were doing this before the Roberts decision.
This was not all new. They followed the FDR playbook on Social Security and they openly admitted so (Biden opened his mouth about following the FDR playbook).
It’s the old adage that if we don’t learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.
Tons were written about this 3 years ago and Rush Limbaugh had many segments devoted to it. I researched it thoroughly and warned that it would be upheld as a tax while most everyone else were placing their bets on commerce clause arguments.
FDR argued for an old age pension fund later named ‘Social Security’. He saw that he would lose in court so he instructed his lawyers to argue it was a tax ***in court*** while at the same time claiming it was a pension premium ***in public***.
I hope the Pacific Legal Foundation is successful but I have my doubts. It can be said the House acquiesced and nothing more needs to be said.
In theory. In actuality, no one on that bench has the guts.
In theory, I should be a millionaire.
“I seem to recall a few people here claiming that was why Chief Justice Roberts called it a tax, so it could be smothered later on. Anyone else remember that?”
That would be me. And a few others who were partially clear headed and not believing that the sky is falling.
If this makes it to the Supreme Court, you can bet Roberts will be jumping up and down to rule for the Plaintiff.
I am hoping that the strategy is that the method of passage is unacceptable to SCOTUS and the reason that Roberts ruled the way that he did is so that two birds could be killed with one ruling.
Yes. Also, that he wanted to squash further abuse of the commerce clause.
I hope one of these efforts will succeed. McConnell also purportedly has a plan.
As I remember the argument, Harry Reid emptied the bill and stuffed it with his own version. The only thing that remained the same was the bill number with the HR attached to it. The argument is that so much was changed, it was actually a bill involving taxing that originated in the Senate.
Pretty much as I see it. Pesky rules won't stop the One.
“Pretty much as I see it. Pesky rules won’t stop the One.”
I believe Roberts actually has contempt for Obama and the process by which the bill was originated and passed. This has a chance to be Roberts “stick it up your ass” moment.
No pun intended...
I know I was among those that thought Roberts got a little too "cute" with his ruling. He didn't want to "appear political" by striking it down, but he gave conservatives and Republicans ammunition with which to deal with the law's implications.
Of course, the Republicans blew it last November, as they couldn't articulate the high taxes as a reason to elect Romney and appeal it. Whatever else the ruling offered from a legal standpoint remains to be seen. Is the GOP actively coordinating the law's downfall, or are they hoping for a miracle, that the law's implementation will implode on itself, pointing all the blame on Democrats?
ObamaCare was nowhere to be seen in the original bill. The Senate basically played a shell game by gutting that bill and turning it into ObamaCare.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what the legal implications of this kind of nonsense would be.
That's a shame too. The far left will suffer the most for their treason, but their suffering won't come until it's too late to rescue them from the natural consequences of their destructive choices.
yep.... i was one of them..
the tax, with so many ( tens of thousands ) exemptions, is in no way equitable...
alas, we have to wait for 2014, when someone actually has to pay it, for it to make it’s way through the courts...
Roberts very craftily put in several “poison pills”, which *could* kill Obamacare dead, but only if a Republican congress and president want to.
He really played some strategy. Had he voted against Obamacare, Kennedy would have crossed over and voted for it, and it would have been bullet proof. But by voting for it, he could do one of the few things a Chief Justice can do, which is to determine who writes the opinion for the majority.
And he decided to write that opinion himself, and thus insert the poison pills. And he knew that the liberals on the court would never, ever, vote against it, unless he killed it outright, causing a big brawl.
Justice Kennedy was reportedly enraged at Roberts for stealing his thunder. He wanted to be the deciding vote that would put Obamacare into the law books. Instead he gets to pound sand in a rat hole.
Importantly, taxation is a HUGE poison pill, because unlike other bills, taxes cannot be impacted one way or another by requiring a two-thirds majority. They are always just a simple majority.
This means just 51 (non-RINO) Republican senators (currently 45), 218 Republican congressmen (currently 232), and a Republican president can kill that SOB Obamacare dead.
This will likely happen sooner rather than later.
However, the Republicans had also better have their own health care plan on the table the instant they do this, and ram it through very fast. Or they will be on the ground floor of a collapsing high rise.
Ever see a Bill from the House?
" ... and for other purposes."
They can strip everything out and send it back for passage. That is exactly what happened here.
The House will be deemed to have passed H.R. 3590 without an actual vote directly by the House on
H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate.
1. Substitute the Senate-passed health reform bill [H.R. 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA] for the Budget Committee legislation.
2. Include President Obama’s proposed changes to H.R. 3590 in the form of a reconciliation bill. This bill is
expected to be posted on the Committees web site some time on March 16th.
3. Report a closed rule, meaning no amendments may be offered during debate on the House floor.
Republicans are expected to be able to offer a motion to recommit, or a motion to recommit with
instructions, which likely would take the form of a complete substitute amendment.
4. The Rules Committee report is expected to contain a self-executing provision which will say when the
House passes the reconciliation measure containing the President’s proposed changes to H.R. 3590, the
House will be deemed to have passed H.R. 3590. In other words, the House would not vote directly on
H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate. The health reform bill would go to the White House for the President’s
signature. The reconciliation bill, containing changes in H.R. 3590, would go to the Senate for
Take note of the path this took --
As introduced and passed in the House and sent to the Senate where they stripped out Rangel's legislation and inserted their unAffordable Care Act:
Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) exempt members of the uniformed services, the Foreign Service, and employees of the intelligence community on official extended duty service from the recapture requirements of the first-time homebuyer tax credit; (2) extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit through November 30, 2010, for individuals serving on official extended duty service outside the United States for at least 90 days in 2009; (3) exclude from gross income payments to military personnel to compensate for declines in housing values due to a base closure or realignment; and (4) increase penalties for failure to file a partnership or S corporation tax return.
Amends the Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 to increase corporate estimated tax payments in the third quarter of 2014 by an additional 0.5%.
It was "deemed 'passed' " because the House HAD passed it, but not as to the language the Senate inserted.
We, the People, have been legislatively screwed!
True. But when the House originally passed it, the law wasn’t a revenue raising matter.
The senate wiped the shell bill clean and created a mandate which was then characterized by Roberts as a tax.
That means the first revenue bill (now that we know the Roberts opinion) originated in the House.
We already have four to dump the law, and Roberts needs one solid reason to supply the fifth vote. This might be it.
The fact of the matter is that HR 3590, as originally passed by the House, was concerned with certain veterans' benefits. It was never taken up by the Senate in its original form, however.
Instead, Harry Reid stripped out the entire contents of HR 3590 and "amended" the bill with the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). It was this bill that was passed by the Senate and sent back to the House for action.
So, technically, Obamacare and its various taxes did originate in the House.
Does Harry Reid's act fly in the face of Constitutional principles? Of course, it does. However, majority leaders of both parties have been following this practice for well over a hundred years. It's not a new trick.
I still cannot believe that it’s legal for a bill to be drafted, then gutted, and the original language replaced with completely different text and offered as the original. That, to me, sounds like something out of a bad espionage novel, but it’s real.