[kevao]

I’m no expert, but IIRC, the Obamacare Bill originated in the Senate, then passed the House, then went to reconciliation and final passage.

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”.

If they’re now claiming the “fees” aren’t fees, but “taxes”, doesn’t that delegitimize the whole process?

[CherylBower]

“delegitimize the whole process?”

Ha, you’re funny.

[erkyl]

I think I remember it passing in the House first. Remember, Scott Brown was going to be the 41st vote against it? So they regrouped and did it through reconciliation. I also remember all the people who voted against it in the House the first time (or vice versa) switching around after the Senate ‘fixed’ it. It went through the House first, I’m almost positive.

But I’ve been wrong before. Hope I’m wrong.

[Vendome]

Even so, they are essentially arguing that the insurance companies, which they are mandating we purchase from, are now de-facto arms of the government.

Also, there would be no uniformity to each state, from each provider, and group discount or even age.

They are all different, so Commerce Clause cannot possibly be relevant besides all that 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th amendment stuff.

[AFreeBird]

Hahaha... The whole process has illegitimate from the word go.

[pleasenoobama]

I’m no expert, but IIRC, the Obamacare Bill originated in the Senate, then passed the House, then went to reconciliation and final passage.

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”.

If they’re now claiming the “fees” aren’t fees, but “taxes”, doesn’t that delegitimize the whole process?

The "senate bill" was actually originally some insignificant bill the House passed and was then amended on the Senate floor to remove everything in the bill and replace it with the text of Dear Leader Reid's proposal. It doesn't violate the letter of the law, just the spirit. In spite of the underhanded legislative procedure, that particular charge won't stand up in court.

[XenaLee]

If they’re now claiming the “fees” aren’t fees, but “taxes”, doesn’t that delegitimize the whole process?

Yes, it does. But who is going to report on it? Certainly not the lame/mainstream media. Nobody but us will even know.

[lonestar]

What was up is now down and what was down is now up.

[Lmo56]

Was passed in the Senate, then passed in the House - and they sent a separate bill with the changes in it back to the Senate - the Senate then voted up the changes.

Article I Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ...

This is not constitutional - if the courts accept it as a tax ...

[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.

[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.