Posted on 10/05/2013 12:05:42 PM PDT by neverdem
The dumb lawyer in a SC robe, has it FUBAR.
Of note is the first case in this review that tests the Origination Clause. They are unclear as to whether the Court would consider this a "technicality" or would scuttle the whole thing over it.
On the one hand, the Senate took a bill that originated by Charlie Rangel in the House, but gutted it entirely and replaced it with Obamacare. On the other hand, if the Court doesn't uphold the spirit of the Origination Clause, they are effectively removing the power of the purse from the House forever more.
-PJ
Interesting point.
Thanks for the ping.
Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t.
***Along exactly this line, I posted this vanity:
Obamacare/shutdown vanity: Why doesn’t the house of reps just follow the law?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3074653/posts
“Well Oct 1st has arrived. The first actual payee would THEN have “standing” to take Obamacare to court.”
I’ve posted elsewhere that the USSC majority opinion appeared to reference the ripeness issue. The taxes won’t be paid until at least next year though.
“And until someone actually pays that tax and files a claim in court, it is ‘premature/unripe’.
“Not that I especially expect it, but the USSC could overturn the individual mandate without contradicting their previous ruling. There were actually suggestions of this in the previous ruling, though I consider that rather bare thread to hang onto considering the pressure to be put on them if they overturn it after all the expense and disruption the nation has gone to to implement it.”
Thanks for the replies to my post.
I hope someone makes an attempt to get this case to SCOTUS soon.
Thanks for the ping!
Compliance with Obamacare violates Doctor Patient Confidentiality.
Obamacare is in violation of the Doctors Hippocratic Oath as follows:
” - - - All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. - - - “
Another line of legal reasoning involves comparing Obamacare to all the do’s and don’ts the Federal Government has put into Law about our “privacy rights” such as HIPPA, questions that future employers can and cannot ask at one’s job interview, etc.
A criminal at arrest time has the “right to remain silent” which is not an option for any of us - - - , as our Doctors have been forced by the damn Federal Government to betray us over our very loud protests.
Class Action Law Suit anyone?
Might be something for Senators Cruz and Lee to file on our behalf ?!
To sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans that Obamacare was not.
Once again, the president is not telling the truth about Obamacare. The Supreme Court did not endorse it. The Supreme Court said it could only conceivably be sustained as a tax. It still had to pass the Constitution’s tests for valid taxation. It failed.
Andy McCarthy nails it. Hopefully our GOP congress is listening and will implement this strategy to invalidate this improper 'tax'.
One of the most important things going on right now. Weekend BUMP !
The final step which National Review omits is that unconstitutional laws are void upon passage. From Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256), " The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [My emphasis]"
No one is bound to obey the ACA. It was unconstitutional upon passage, due to violation of Article 1, Section 7. The People must resist this tyrannical overreach.
James R. McClure Jr.
Anti-federalist Democrat candidate for IN9
PING !
PING !
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.