Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress [Obamacare is unconstitutional]
Pacific Legal Foundation ^

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.

Summary:

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. PLF’s amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).

The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF’s 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.

PLF’s 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, PLF’s Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA’s individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

The Supreme Court agreed with this position, in the NFIB ruling.

YouTube playlist

However, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by four justices, characterized the ACA’s 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 PLF’s 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 Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t 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.”


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: obamacare
It was Obama's own lawyers who argued in front of the Supreme Court that the mandate was a tax and not a penalty. Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this. And yet, he violated his Presidential oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he signed Obamacare.
1 posted on 04/01/2013 11:08:41 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

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!?


2 posted on 04/01/2013 11:15:46 PM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

If this abomination can be stopped by any means, any technicality, etc., it should be pursued vigorously.


3 posted on 04/01/2013 11:21:10 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grundle

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.


4 posted on 04/01/2013 11:22:49 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“...any technicality...”

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.


5 posted on 04/01/2013 11:24:55 PM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grundle

good outfit. good point. wish boehner would apply it to defund obamacare.


6 posted on 04/01/2013 11:27:43 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this.

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.[5] 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."[6] Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.[7] 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,[8] calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question.[9][dead link]

So you see, Constitution Shmonstitution. Obama knows this very well.

7 posted on 04/01/2013 11:33:28 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

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.


8 posted on 04/02/2013 12:06:45 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

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...


9 posted on 04/02/2013 12:24:19 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Thanks for telling me that. Then I agree with you - this lawsuit has no merit. I was wrong.


10 posted on 04/02/2013 12:54:00 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve; All

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.


11 posted on 04/02/2013 12:58:49 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grundle
What's that you say?

Constitution?

Constitution?

We doon need no Constitution!

Jus gives us yo money!

12 posted on 04/02/2013 1:18:29 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Found the info. Here’s a timeline of the bill from the NY Times of all places:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/111/hr3590

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.


13 posted on 04/02/2013 1:42:05 AM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Yawn


14 posted on 04/02/2013 1:43:03 AM PDT by Terry Mross (This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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.


15 posted on 04/02/2013 2:09:00 AM PDT by maddog55 (America Rising.... Civil War II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

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).


16 posted on 04/02/2013 2:16:57 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: grundle

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.


17 posted on 04/02/2013 2:31:22 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

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.


18 posted on 04/02/2013 3:08:12 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

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”


19 posted on 04/02/2013 3:20:55 AM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

“We have a POS POTUS that violates the constitution daily and a totally useless congress that fails to do anything about it.”

Amen...!


20 posted on 04/02/2013 3:22:58 AM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“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).”

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.


21 posted on 04/02/2013 3:28:19 AM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
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!?

Thanks Hillary

22 posted on 04/02/2013 3:29:17 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Fun for women ages 21 through 35)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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.


23 posted on 04/02/2013 3:42:35 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
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.

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.

24 posted on 04/02/2013 3:58:30 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

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.


25 posted on 04/02/2013 4:07:10 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grundle

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.


26 posted on 04/02/2013 4:10:23 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He must have known about this.

C'MON!

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.

27 posted on 04/02/2013 4:32:09 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Obamacare started life as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" in the House.

This was covered here on FR when congress passed this mess.

The lawsuit has no merit and will be laughed out of court.

28 posted on 04/02/2013 6:03:42 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

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.


29 posted on 04/02/2013 6:06:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Bingo.....! And, as such can be replaced.....!


30 posted on 04/02/2013 6:13:35 AM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: grundle
And yet, he violated his Presidential oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he signed Obamacare took the oath.
31 posted on 04/02/2013 6:50:30 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
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.

Oh.... you mean like a virus.

32 posted on 04/02/2013 6:51:51 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grundle

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.


33 posted on 04/02/2013 6:53:56 AM PDT by DJ Frisat ((optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
“don’t need no stinking constitution”, we “supreme” we make ‘da laws round hea”


34 posted on 04/02/2013 6:56:26 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson