Skip to comments.Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress [Obamacare is unconstitutional]
Posted on 04/01/2013 11:08:41 PM PDT by grundle
Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
Contact: Paul J. Beard II or Timothy Sandefur
Status: Defendants' motion to dismiss first amended complaint filed Nov. 8, 2012. Response to the motion was filed on Dec. 3, 2012.
Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLFs amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitutions Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).
The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLFs existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
PLFs Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, in NFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLFs Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACAs individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitutions Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).
The Supreme Court agreed with this position, in the NFIB ruling.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by four justices, characterized the ACAs charge as a federal tax, because it requires a payment to the federal government from people who decide not to buy health insurance.
That holding prompted PLFs new cause of action. If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked, said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitutions procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasnt asked and didnt address this question in the NFIB case. The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts.
Ah jeez. This is just like the “birthers” crap. Just like Obama was elected - this bill has passed. All these questions and lawsuits and wanting to know the truth is so stupid.
What does it matter now anyway!?
If this abomination can be stopped by any means, any technicality, etc., it should be pursued vigorously.
The AHCA actually started life in the House as some completely different bill, from what I understand. Once it got to the Senate, it was hollowed out completely and reconstituted in its current form. Thus, this suit will be found to have no merit, since technically the bill met the requirements for a revenue bill.
Ya mean, like it isn’t allowed by our Constitution? Good luck.
Sadly - something so basic, will be viewed by so many as grasping at straws.
good outfit. good point. wish boehner would apply it to defund obamacare.
There's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. One might as well argue: The sky is blue. Pigs must fly.
I know ... I know. PRO FORMA he must have known.
Heh. Looking at the Wikipedia article on PRO FORMA, I come full circle and find this:
In the United States federal government, either house of the Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted. This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other." Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session. They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments. However, in 2012, President Barack Obama made four appointments during a pro forma session, calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question.[dead link]
So you see, Constitution Shmonstitution. Obama knows this very well.
What do you mean? This is different. This legal challenge started the moment SCOTUS ruled 0bamacare a tax. Prior to that, only the King’s inner circle knew that.
I wonder what PLF’s response to that line of argument is. If it is true, then they must be aware of it, and presumably they don’t want to be viewed as vexatious at the USSC level lol...
Thanks for telling me that. Then I agree with you - this lawsuit has no merit. I was wrong.
Well sport...it does matter.. At least to those of us who still believe in and live by our Constitution. Surprised someone with your lack of these ideals would want to be a part of a forum like FR.
We doon need no Constitution!
Jus gives us yo money!
Found the info. Here’s a timeline of the bill from the NY Times of all places:
Apparently, it started life as tax breaks for military homeowners, and when it reached the Senate it was completely eviscerated into a “shell bill”. They then larded it down with amendments that eventually became the AHCA. So the whole of Ocare is actually amendments. There’s no core to the bill.
Who would prosecute? It would eventually end up in the Supreme Court and the outcome would be obvious.
We have a POS POTUS that violates the constitution daily and a totally useless congress that fails to do anything about it.
We have a compromised Chief Justice, too. Either he was lying about his judicial philosophy all along or he’s being blackmailed either on his sexuality or on a questionable adoption (and all need not be mutually exclusive).
I believe the whole thing was geared to be declared unconstitutional, then tossed out a month or two prior to the 2012 election, thus giving him momentum strictly upon the terrible act of the Supreme Court. But the court denied him this political angle, and now...he’s stuck with something that won’t fully function.
While the origination clause is effective, the Senate has in the past initiated fiscal bills (even budgets). However, the final action is approval by the House in conference where the conferees agree on the language and the House votes or revotes, legally approving the bill as if it orginated the bill.
That said, I believe there was some illegal maneuvering by Pelosi on the supposed conference return. Remember the “Deemed Passed” ruling? The House never actually voted on it if I recall correctly. Personally, I think the bill is illegal on that fact alone. But we shall see just how big a set of balls the US Courts have in adjudicating this.
That’s just exactly what Justice Roberts and four other traitors on the supreme court said.
“don’t need no stinking constitution”, we “supreme” we make ‘da laws round hea”
“We have a POS POTUS that violates the constitution daily and a totally useless congress that fails to do anything about it.”
“We have a compromised Chief Justice, too. Either he was lying about his judicial philosophy all along or hes being blackmailed either on his sexuality or on a questionable adoption (and all need not be mutually exclusive).”
Or...., he may just be an out and out communist...!
He has demonstrated that he has NO honor, he has NO understanding of the constitution, and he has a leftist agenda he wants to implement.
Roberts is a traitor. If he was blackmailed, he brought this on himself just like Petraeus did. If we actually had investigative reporters who sought the truth, we would find out what reaaly went down. Wasn’t the opinion striking the law down already writen? Scalia was supposly surprised. Even their initial vote was 5 to 4 striking down. Obama’s own demeanor was different right after the case was heard. It changed closer to the decision to smug and confident.
Well if any bill can be made into a revenue bill simply by using the "strip and fill" method, why have any requirement about revenue bills originating in the House at all?
If all bills can be made into a revenue bill just by stripping out the House's non-revenue related bill and inserting revenue related stuff, we'd have no need for such a requirement. Hence the contradiction argues to invalidate. In fact, I assert that this is ONE of the major reasons that 0dumbo did not want the bill to be written using "taxes".
...wonder what the judges will see.
AH yes, the House bill WAS a revenue bill but was completely stripped out and replaced with ppcaca or whatever it is.
Was it returned to conference, voted, and returned to the full House and voted or was some chicanery involved. I presume THAT is the nature of the suit... the subsequent requirements for passage when the Senate amends a revenue bill.
Obama doesn’t know much except what’s told to him. He’s a puppet.
The persons pulling the strings revealed via surrogates muttering in the press that the FDR playbook on Social Security would be followed. FDR did the same, claimed Social Security was an old age pension annuity while having his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it was a tax.
Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.
Obama doesn't know sh*t about Constitutional Law, and never did.
If you think he "taught" anything at Chicago, you don't know anything about how the commies groom their prospects.
This was covered here on FR when congress passed this mess.
The lawsuit has no merit and will be laughed out of court.
We have truly reached a point where we are a nation of men, not laws.
Whoever has the power, be it through the point of a gun or physical size or 50.1% of the vote, that’s “the law”.
As a consequence, all power exercised today has no legitimacy since it is being exercised outside the authority of the Constitution.
Bingo.....! And, as such can be replaced.....!
Oh.... you mean like a virus.
Those of you who are old enough to have lived 8 years under Clinton and 4 years of Obama should realize that there are no clear-cut laws or legal definitions. Everything is subject to liberal interpretation and bias, which seems to always rule the day, regardless of how illegitimate or unconstitutional it seems to clear thinkers who believe in the Rule of Law.
We’re toast. If Libs/Progressives want it, they will change enough rules or break enough laws to get it. In a very real sense, Hillary was right: It doesn’t matter. Because the powers-that-be won’t allow it to matter. No matter how strenuously we object or attempt to point out glaring inconsistency and lawlessness.
It sucks and it doesn’t make me compromise my principles, but it’s the unfortunate reality. America as it was is over.