Posted on 05/05/2014 1:30:22 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
Status: Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Apppeals on Jul. 5, 2013. Briefing completed Dec. 20, 2013. Oral argument scheduled for May 8, 2014.
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 ntroduced 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. 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. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at pacificlegal.org ...
Yeah I don’t buy that Roberts was so smart he’s setting it up to be declared unconstitutional.
He had an opportunity to void the whole thing and twisted logic to declare it a tax.
Respect her opinion.
With any case it combining the correct premise with parties. Out and out there doesn’t appear to be any glaring errors unlike the BC cases — who never held the perpetrator’s feet to the fire
We shall see!
But ya, my money says this is going nowhere.
That was my chief complaint initially and I thought it would fail in the courts.
Many friends insisted they didn’t care how it happened, only that it got done.
Tried to explain they couldn’t complain if the R’s eventually pulled the same thing.
Deaf ears
I just want to be able to tweet that liberal stenographer , “ it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL , bit*hes!”
Those are not the specific legal issues involved, but certainly practical considerations would have an impact on the thinking of those justices who are willing to bend the constitution. A revenue bill that does not originate in the House is not made valid if the House later votes to approve it, whether on a party line vote or not. There are reasons why the founders wanted revenue bills to come from the representatives of the people, not the representatives of the states. That does not mean that Roberts won’t ignore his duty.
“Voiding obamacare on a “Constitutional technicality” is a reach in this political climate.
but it would be hugh”
Yep, it would really be series! All your base are belong to us! LOL.
They wouldn't have to .... they did not address this argument last time at all, and I wondered afterward whether Roberts had deliberately set this up by declaring the (anti-XIVth-Amendment) penalty a "tax", as payback for using his adopted boys against him to twist his arm.
Or so I wondered.
It could be that the constitutional lawyer on the other end of Roberts's midnight phone call extracted a more expansive promise, always to find all aspects of Sovietcare constitutional every time, or else.
If that's the case, we're screwed.
1. It raises significant revenue, which is general revenue and not reserved for special programs.
2. No. The bill # was assigned in the House. The text originated in the Senate. The House did not vote on the bill; they voted on a parliamentary procedure and “deemed” the bill passed.
3. Not historically. See the U.S. Constitution and associated amendments. Said amendments do not replace the entire text of the document.
4. Matters not. The House cannot delegate an enumerated power to the Senate by omission or any other means that I can see.
The ACA is only illegal if the Supreme Court still recognizes the Constitution as the supreme law of America. They don’t!
I gazed into my crystal ball.
The the court will eventually “sever” the revenue portions and let stand the remainder of the bill.
Thanks for your insight.
Magic 8 Ball says ...
Ask again later.
...
Magic 8 Ball says ...
Obamacare SUCKS!
Magic 8 Ball never lies!
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, you’re welcome. ;p
May you live in interesting times.
Lies, deception, deceipt, bribes, tricks, scams, total bullsh*t. Typical Marxocrats.
The other two curses:
May you come to the attention of those in authority.
May you find what you are looking for.
It was not a bill raising revenue originally...even if the senate amended the bill to an empty husk...the bill originally did not raise revenue until the senate amended it. The amending of the bill to raise revenue does not dilute it’s unconstitutional origin.
Though the bill number originally came from the house, the amendment making it a revenue bill came from the senate there-bye making it an end run around the constitution.
The senate can propose amendments to a bill but they can’t replace the entire bill’s raison d’etre without it becoming a new bill entirely. The court should strike it down just on that basis, forcing the legislature to be more honest and direct about its law making. The senate did what it did because the congress had cold feet and wasn’t moving fast enough for chuckie shumer and hairless reid.
As for the house accepting the senate bill, that is where the Court may punt on this suit. It may simply note that since the house has not sent any representatives to initiate or support the law suit, the question will become one of standing to sue and that is where the court will rule.
- PJ
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.