[E. Pluribus Unum]

The only way the ACA can be declared Constitutional is if Roberts applies the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to it... it’s both a tax and not a tax at one and the same time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Or, it’s like Schroedinger’s cat... as long as the law is unpassed, we can’t know if it is dead or alive.

[Cboldt]

See Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914).

It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated act of Congress, it is not for this court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill.

Lots of discussion relating to legal precedent, both in Congress and as construed by the courts, in CRS RL31399 - The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, March 15, 2011. The short version of the Court precedents is:

The Supreme Court has occasionally ruled on Origination Clause matters, adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose.

Emphasis is mine.

[CitizenUSA]

Obamacare isn’t going to be eliminated by this. No way.

Based on Justice Roberts’ previous ruling, he’ll likely say the House would have originated ACA anyway since they voted for it. The court won’t toss out ACA on what they’ll see as a mere technicality. It will be just like the penalty that’s a tax. The law said it was a penalty, but the House really meant it as a tax.

In other words, Roberts might claim the origination clause was met in principle when the House passed ACA, because that proves they would have originated it anyway. I know. I know. It’s lame, but so was the penalty that’s a tax rationale. The “law” these days is simply whatever they want it to be. They’re quite brazen about it.