What’s your point in any of this?
HR 3590 originated as a tax bill, was gutted and changed to Obamacare and back to the House where it was approved. What’s to challenge? That the House did not originate Obamacare as a tax bill but yet did originate a tax bill that was changed by the Senate to Obamacare and then approved by the House? The House can do anything it likes to a bill once it is proposed. No court is going to overturn the House’s prerogative to approve and pass any bill it wants to.
As for the exchanges, it’s clear in the sections 1311 and 1321 that the federal government can contract and startup a non-profit to setup the state exchange if the state declines to do so. So a court is going to say it has to be a state government run exchange versus a federally backed state non-profit exchange? Again the court is not going to get into how government decides its laws are to be administered. Roberts said Obamacare is constitutional because it’s a valid tax under the 16th Amendment. How the government administers this ‘tax’ as a redistribution scheme is not something the courts are going to waste time with.
The whole idea of wasting time with these lawsuits is for what? To overturn Obamacare? Not going to happen! Then who benefits? Lawyers preying on conservative angst?
The REAL THREAT TO OBAMACARE comes from prospects of the 2014 election where the republicans have a shot at taking over the Senate and then forcing a defunding of the damn thing until the 2016 presidential election.
But what is the democrat’s response? IMMIGRATION BILL! Where they can get millions and millions of instant votes to stop the republican takeover of the Senate and possibly dislodge republicans from control of the House. THIS IS WHERE THE REAL FIGHT IS! These piddly lawsuits are nothing.
I know it’s a lot of reading but laziness should not be tolerated in the fight to preserve American freedoms and its Rule of Law.
From the archives I posted previously:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004254.html
SAM REED: NON-CITIZEN VOTES SHOULD STAND
I couldn’t find the Democrats’ original motion, but this Republican response shows that the Democrats filed to exclude any non-citizen votes from the tally of illegal votes in the election contest, unless the non-citizens were challenged before the election.
Secretary of State Sam Reed filed a motion in support of the Democrats’ position:
under the election contest statute as currently written, “illegal votes” do not include votes cast by improperly registered non-citizens1 unless their registration was challenged before the election. For that reason, the Democrats’ motion concerning this interpretation of the election contest statute should be granted
Great. So our unique voting franchise as “citizens” is, in the Reed/Gregoire interpretation of our election laws, mostly worthless. At least Joni Balter can no longer claim with a straight face that “State election officials are not aware of a single documented instance where a non-citizen voted in the governor’s race”.
You know, there’s a point at which it will become tempting for somebody to pay hundreds of thousands of people in Hyderabad to register and vote by mail claiming a permanent address at the King County Elections office.
Premium assistance is specified in Section 1401. Section 1401 pertains to exchanges defined under Sec. 1311, and not to those defined under Sec. 1321. Have you read Section 1401?
Are you saying that we should not fight PPACA and instead fight Amnesty? Why not fight both?
U.S. Const. art. I, § 7. "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." Did H.R.3590 raise revenue? "Yes" or "no".