Skip to comments.George Will: Obamacare Doomed Under Constitution's Origination Clause
Posted on 05/03/2014 3:01:05 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Two years ago, when the Supreme Court declared Obamacare's penalty to be a tax, it doomed the healthcare reform act as an "unconstitutional violation of the origination clause," columnist George Will says.
This Thursday, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals, the nation's second-most important court, will hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act adheres to the Constitution's "origination clause," which declare that "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," Will writes in his column in The Washington Post Saturday.
Will points out that the Democrat-controlled Senate passed Obamacare on a party-line vote "without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats.
Thursday's arguments, said Will, will show that the act was "indisputably a revenue measure" that did not originate in the House, which later passed the House on yet another party-line vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The courts are lawless, and if the law mattered, the Roberts ACA opinion would never have been written. Don’t hold your breath.
Won’t matter. The Constitution was rendered meaningless centuries ago.
"Do not worry, my lord, we EXEMPT in the GOP
agree that the Constitution is not relevant anymore."
What the Constitution says and what SCOTUS does are completely mutually exclusive.
How many years from now?
The $4.3 billion "Louisisana Purchase."
THE PAPER TRAIL IS HUGE Sen Landrieu (Scumocrat-LA) sold her aye vote in what Forbes Magazine dubbed "The 'Louisiana Purchase" that included a massive $4.3 Billion to Landrieu.
FORBES REPORTED the Democrats nailed Landrieus support for Obamacare w/ a greenback bribe. Landrieu, critics believe, pledged her vote in exchange for some $200 million more additional federal funds for Louisiana. Except that, due to a drafting error, the law ended up giving Louisiana $4.3 billion: more than twenty times the assigned amount. MORE HERE http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
How $4.3 billion to Landrieu was attached to the Obamacare bill, and how Obama and Reid failed to catch and fix it, is yet annother indictment of the Obamacare atrocity. The payoff to Landrieu should be investigated as an indication of how EVERY Democrat came to vote for Obamacare.
BACKSTORY In the fall of 2009, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was trying to get the necessary 60 Dimocrat votes to pass the Affordable Care Act. He needed every Dim on board, which gave waffling senators a great deal of leverage. In Landrieu's case, she connivingly saw that selling her aye vote could get her maybe $200 million federal dollars. Obama complied--- Reid chalked up another vote for Obamacare---and the $4.3 Landrieu giveaway was attached to the Obamacare bill.
<><> Where'd the money go, Obama? <><>
It can’t be a tax.
If it’s a tax, it’s a tax on life itself.
That’s the way I read it, the only way any reasonable person can read it.
As if the Constitutions means anything anymore.
<><> Where’d the money go, Obama? <><>
They bought all the stock to keep the market up.
This long from over. There is no severibility clause in the ACA. Anything within the act that is held as being unconstitutional will kill the entire law. Hobby Lobby would kill it, origination would kill it too.
Centuries, as in something like 1650?
I was thinking more along the lines of 1799 during the first Adams administration and the Alien and Sedition Acts...but modern day events make that look amateurish.
Seriously? Like the Constitution matters?
By whom? Not by lawmakers; they just handed him exactly what Montesquieu warned us against.
I’ve long thought that Roberts set a trap when he said it was a revenue bill. There had to be some reason to take that road instead of an outright judgement that it was unconstitutional on its face.
Now the courts are faced with a very narrow issue about the constitutionality of the law.
That’s when the Constitution originated, according to Sheila Jackson-Lee....
Some would claim it became null and void in the early 1800’s after Madison & the Founding Fathers departed.
Deserves a repeat---nice to have a "constitutional scholar" in the WH, isnt it?
>> “If its a tax, its a tax on life itself.” <<
The med mafia is “a tax on life itself.”
It’s a tax on ‘breathing’
Well, you have guaranteed to you “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” by the Declaration.
And as far as I have read, the Declaration trumps even the Constitution.
I Have Said This For Years!Article 1/Section 7:”All Bills For Raising Revenue Shall ORIGINATE In The House of Representatives”!!!This is why I was TOTALLY”Blind-Sided”by Roberts when he called”The Individual Mandate”a”TAX”!!!!!!!!
Technically, the ACA originated in the House.
But I think we might be in for a dissappointment if we are expecting a complete slap down. Given that the senate, house and President all passed this monstrosity, and given that's it's already partly implemented, I don't see a judge doing a complete smack down.
I'm trying to think of what options the judge might have:
"What difference does it make?" /s
There is no way Obamacare is getting the axe on origination clause grounds. If they are willing to go directly against the plain wording of the Constitution at times, a technicality is not going to stop them. This is wishful thinking. I hope I’m wrong, but there’s just no way this thing gets killed by the Court now.
Re-post of a story from four years ago.
I think it’s unfortunate that those involved in writing the Constitution were so quick to try and twist it to their benefit,
But who will call the Current Regime out on this egregious violation of the provisions of the US Constitution? Law that is not enforced is the same as no law at all.
The Supreme Court, on a very narrow finding, declared the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” a tax bill. But since its genesis was in the SENATE, and not the House, it was drawn up not in conformity with the very clear wording of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 7, is totally unambiguous. “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives....”
Who has standing to bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court?
Only one person declared it a tax. Roberts. The rest of the court did not. However, the minority from last time might agree that it is a tax under prior court rulings, so that would give 5 justices. Then those 5 would have to find that the constitution still exists. As you said, I would not be on this being a winning argument. Whatever they had on Roberts, they still have it, and I’m not sure that Thomas and Scalia will go along with any arguments that are too clever by half.
October 5, 2013 4:00 AM
Obamacares Unconstitutional Origins
Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didnt.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
The courts are not our friend, Sir; best to wake up and smell the coffee.
Methinks George’s day has come and gone.
“Ive long thought that Roberts set a trap when he said it was a revenue bill. There had to be some reason to take that road instead of an outright judgement that it was unconstitutional on its face.”
that’s the one i’m betting on. here’s why. I don’t believe he really believed his argument. he is much too smart.
that only leaves two possibilities. one, your above argument, or two, the previously postulated argument that the nsa, having a line on everything, had him blackmailed. if its number two, then we’re all doomed anyway.
i’m giving a bigger percentage chance that the nsa has not become an evil (well, not totally) organization.
I would like to think that all that George Will says is true but I don’t think it has any juice behind it. George Will is not by any stretch the first to bring this up. This subject has been brought up on FR several times since the SCOTUS ruled ACA was Constitutional as a tax.
Where the origination clause argument breaks down is the dems who controlled the House in 2009 passed a bill that was aimed at providing veteran homeowners tax relief, then the Senate gutted it and inserted ACA into it. Then it was sent back to the House conference where Pelosi ‘deemed it passed’.
In other words a bill involving tax relief or taxes originated in the House, was changed by the Senate and accepted and passed by the House.
So there is no there there.
The case will not go anywhere.
The only way to get rid of Obamacare is to repeal it. And the way to do that is to take the Senate in 2014 with true conservatives and then take the White House in 2016 with a true conservative. This is why the internecine struggle between establishment republicans and Tea Party conservatives is so important because it determines if the USA will be full blown socialist in its future or not.
Origination clause arguments like nullification arguments are distractions and lead nowhere.
And it's getting more the case that they are mutually opposed.
It has taken this long for it to wind its way through the courts. Let it play out.
It’s going to be ruled null and void and then Congress would have to start-over from scratch. How about that?
Re-post of a story from four years ago.
This Thursday, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals, the nation’s second-most important court, will hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act adheres to the Constitution’s “origination clause,” which declares that “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,” Will writes in his column in The Washington Post Saturday.
George Will's article is the re-post.
The big test will be the right of families who have lost loved ones to 0bamacare to sue the government . . . that alone could reach into the billions on damages alone.
The courts, sadly, are an excellent example of lipstick on a pig imo.
Also, can anybody volunteer an example of Mr. Will noting, like Judge Andrew Napolitano did, that healthcare is not one of the powers that the states delegated to Congress in the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I?
I agree on that premise.
Gohmert on Meaning of The Origination Clause
I have no control with what happens to it. I’m just cautioning Freepers not to get their hopes wound up around it.
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.