Skip to comments.Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’
Posted on 04/01/2013 6:01:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
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.
Then, you don't have the morals of a United States Senator...
Thank you very much! I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not is corrupt.
So, if it’s a Constitutional right to have tax bills originate in the House...
Let’s sue for damages too!
“Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
back to top
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
“... a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.
Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue, said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. Unlike in the prior cases, the Senates gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”
The ‘catch’ is that this is the first case where the Senate replaced a non-tax bill with a tax bill.
Interesting that the argument has never been made before- I wonder if the Senate has never done this?
The gutted bill “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” was a “tax bill”, http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr3590.
So the argument is actually solely based on the claim that the Senate amended bill was not germane. Which the courts have required in previous origination clause cases.
Text of PLF’s amended complaint: http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=672
Bringing this thread back up.
What should have been the focus was making care affordable WITHOUT medical insurance... encouraging a free and open market for CARE... not the insurance industry.
The only place you can shop around and have free choices over level and quality of care these days is chosing which veterinary doctor you take Fluffy to. Model that. When faced with some stupid crap like knee replacement surgery (which is now advertised nightly on TV alongside of erectile dysfunction pills and toenail fungus meds that destroy your kidneys) or walking with a limp... or just euthanizing myself with a case of whiskey and 20 cartons of Lucky Strikes... leave that up to me.
Remember... free market capitalism is the best system there can ever be, as it is closest to natural processes.
God will provide, the Dude will abide, and Commiecrats can all go f*** themselves.
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.