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
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.