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.
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 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.
True........but....The original bill in the Senate didn't mention a tax. It was a penalty if not complied with.
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.
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.
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.
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.