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.
“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.