Posted on 04/09/2014 2:09:13 AM PDT by kingattax
VIDEO AT LINK
KATY, TEXAS--A lawsuit filed by a Houston area doctor against the Affordable Care Act is moving forward to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit filed by Dr. Steven Hotze, founder of Hotze Health and Wellness Center in Katy, challenges the Obamacare law based upon the origination clause of the Constitution.
In referring to what is known as The Origination Clause, “Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution every tax bill, revenue bill has to start in the House of Representatives,” Hotze explained. “It can’t start in the Senate.”
In this exclusive interview below with Breitbart Texas, Dr. Hotze explains how the Senate took a Veterans Tax Credit bill that started in the House and stripped everything out of the bill, including the title, and substituted the Affordable Care Act legislation. “If the Senate can do that, then there is no origination clause, because, the Senate can turn any bill that came from the House into a tax raising bill, and that’s wrong.”
Dr. Hotze’s attorney, Andy Schlaffly told the Washington Times, “What’s nice about this case, Hotze v. Sebelius, is the trial court resolved all the procedural issues in favor of Dr. Hotze, so they got to the substance at the trial level,” said Mr. Schlafly. “That makes this case a stronger case than most of the other ones.”
Dr. Hotze noted in the interview that the 5th Circuit Court is the most conservative court in the country and this makes this lawsuit one of the most likely to survive long enough to make it to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The actual bill that passed “originated” in the Senate. It may have had a house bill number but it was not a house bill. It was an abandoned house bill that had never been sent for a vote in the Senate before it was stripped of all of its text and title.
It was not intended at that time to be a revenue bill. It only became a revenue bill when John Roberts declared it to be one. The origination issue was never before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t raised because no one bothered to even make the argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax.
The question before the court is whether this kind of political hanky panky is constitutional. Obviously you think it is.
There is a small number of orgination clause cases. The Courts have so far always deferred to Congress, not peeked behind the curtain. If the House objects on origination clause grounds, it knows how to stop the action.
This is what I've been saying since this unconstitutional act was "passed." It is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 7. Unconstitutional acts have no weight and do not need to be obeyed.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
It is clear that the original bill was stripped and then became ObamaCare.
The ACA, as written, was NOT a tax bill, if you recall. They went to great lengths to swear that it was not a tax bill. That was until the ACA was challenging the right of the government to PENALIZE a citizen for a “failure to own something.” Penalized for what you hadn’t done and didn’t own rather than for what you had done.
John Roberts stepped in and declared the mandate a tax.
That means that the bill that was NOT written as a tax bill suddenly became a tax bill.
And, as such, it became a constitutional violation.
All of that aside, it should be a constitutional violation for any bill to be stripped of its original purpose and rewritten in Senate in a pretend “amending” of the bill.
this has nothing to do with “healthcare”. its all about tyranny.
Articles mean squat. Past practice does not make something Constitutional.
Well, it’s a darn shame that the very astute Dr Hotze did not hire you as his legal counsel. All of this time, effort and financial investment he has made and all for naught....according to you.
Dr Hotze should fire his attorney, Andy Schlaffly, immediately and seek your wise and humble counsel.
The “individual mandate” was not the only ‘tax’ in the Obamacare bill ... there were at least a dozen new taxes identified in the bill. For example: the medical device tax, the captial gains surcharge ... these are real taxes that were designed to raise revenue to offset the costs of the subsidies, and were also not legally imposed.
I was surprised that the judge didn’t throw the case out for “lack of standing”.
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.