Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

American Spectator ^ | 6/17/2010 | Phillip Klein

[Hostage]

That all sounds good but the 16th and 17th Amendments rendered those enumerated powers as relics of the past.

The 17th ushered in an era where states would sell out to the highest bidder, and in so doing removed an important part of the Republican form of government.

The Commerce Clause grew backed by the power of the 16th Amendment.

The 10th is viewed now as a relic of history because of the 16th’s effect on commerce.

Many thought Social Security was unconstitutional in the 1930s, but it held up with arguments based on the recent new power of the 16th.

It is the 16th that allows socialism to advance and supplant freedom. The 16th must be repealed to save the Republic.

A good tax code replacement is in HR 25. Many believe it will never pass but I remind people that it took 52 years to legitimize the power to tax in the manner allowed by the 16th. We are only 11 years into the FairTax.

http://www.fairtax.org

[combat_boots]

Let's say that again

This is precisely the argument used when SSIP was challenged in court. The result is that there is no requirement to PAY OUT any SSIP to any individual while every individual is requried to pay into the system.

In order to ensure that every citizen is required to pay into government MANDATED health care, they MUST admit that there is no requirement to PAY OUT a benefit to any individual.

Say hello to death panels.....

[deep]

Above all the Obama crimes and screw ups, this is indeed the worst and most dangerous to Americans.

This is our call to action if this is not stopped.

[Mad Dawgg]

"I know. Shocking."

[bert]

.....I thought that any legislation pertaining to taxation must originate in the House of Representatives......

Great thought.

In all the passing under the table and through the smoke and looking at it with mirrors, this little tid bit fell through the cracks.

[Renderofveils]

And used the same argument FDR did in selling Social Security. To the public: No, no, it's insurance for when you get older. To the court: No, no, you misheard me. It's a tax.

[Maximum Leader]

Its was more complicated that that!

The House bill passed a healthcare bill first, but couldn’t get the 60 Democrats in the Senate to get on board (The Senate requires 60 votes for everything except reconciliation bills). So they started from scratch and passed a bill that the White House and Finance chair Max Baucus wrote together. They got around the Origination clause, by taking another bill that already passed the House (the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, yes it was a tax break and not a tax hike), and then “amended” it by deleting the original text (sorry Service Members!) and inserting the Obamacare language.

So the Senate certainly violated the spirit of the Origination clause, but not the letter of the law and since no one in the House objected, so it was good enough for government work, as they say. The House did later originate a reconciliation bill to amend the Senate bill (which was necessary because Scott Brown’s victory foreclosed the normal reconciliation committee process), so actually the President signed two healthcare reform bills in one week.

[SunkenCiv]

“Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.”

[Talisker]

I thought that any legislation pertaining to taxation must originate in the House of Representatives.

And I think there was discussion about this at the time, but the Dems argued that the “taxes” were not taxes, but “fees”.

Sweet catch.

[kevao]

It’s moot now. Someone pointed out to me that the bill that “originated” in the Senate actually originated in the House first. It was some insignificant House bill that had nothing to do with health care. The Senate then scrubbed the bill entirely and loaded all the Obamacare crap into it. So that, technically, the bill did in fact originate in the House.

Sleazy all the same.

[jcwky]

I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I’m not aware of any other “taxes” that are not paid to a gov’t agency. I mean, in this case they are “mandating” you PURCHASE a PRODUCT/SERVICE from a private company. If the gov’t was providing the medical care - then they could probably (and unfortunately) get this by - If this stands, then under the same premise, they could require all of us to purchase a car every 4 years from GM (Government Motors)!

[erkyl]

Someone else in the thread, Hostage, I think, has explained how they do this with tax credits. See earlier posts.

I am so sad for my country right now, I don’t know what to do. It seems like the oil spill is a metaphor for our country’s future. No one who knows anything is in charge, people are making rules to make things worse, and when rational people dare to make a suggestion, they are bullied into conceding. I think I’ll go back to bed.

[CherylBower]

I only laughed because the whole process from beginning to end was illegitimate.

[opentalk]

at what point is the lying and buying votes, withholding cost reports before a vote - considered fraud and a crime. This group is slimy and needs to be held accountable.

[Lmo56]

It’s moot now. Someone pointed out to me that the bill that “originated” in the Senate actually originated in the House first. It was some insignificant House bill that had nothing to do with health care. The Senate then scrubbed the bill entirely and loaded all the Obamacare crap into it. So that, technically, the bill did in fact originate in the House.

Sleazy all the same.

Not the way it works ...

In Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

" ...The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105—33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law ..."

He left out one important point - if one word is changed in the Senate - then [after it is voted on] the bill has to go to conference and have compromise language agreed upon.

The compromise bill goes back to the House for a vote, then the Senate. If passed intact, it goes to the President. If not, conference again - and so, and so on, and so on ...

So, for Obamacare, it originated in the House [passed] and passed in the Senate [with changes].

Here is where the House got too cute. The changed Senate bill was now an "original" bill - but the House did not want to go to conference. So, the House declared it not to be a revenue bill - but one that generated "fees". This way, they could vote on it second - which they did.

Now, when it may be declared unconstitutional [mandating citizens pay for a good or service] - the administration wants to argue that it is not a "fee", but a "tax" [which is constitutional].

If declared by the Court to be a tax - then it is an unconstitutional law since the changed language originated in the Senate and not the House of Representatives [and another suit would be filed stating so] ...

The Constitution clearly states that all revenue bills originate in the House. If declared a tax - it originated in the Senate [which is unconstitutional]. If it remains a fee, it may be decllared unconstitutional because SCOTUS may rule that Congress cannot mandate the purchase of a good or service ...

[Smokin' Joe]

It's a citizenship tax now...

Well, no wonder he is for it, he won't have to pay it.