Posted on 08/15/2015 10:26:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
This past week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of four judges on that court, denied rehearing en banc (legalese for an entire court rather than just a panel of three judges) in the case of Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Sissel is a case against Obamacare led by the Pacific Legal Foundation, arguing that Obamacare is invalid because it violated the Origination Clause.
Now, the challengers have ninety days to file a writ of certiorari (an appeal) before the U.S. Supreme Court. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I was wondering what had happened with this case. It seems so clear cut yet.........
Thanks Olog-hai.
You mean the “Senate Health Care Bill” that originated in the Senate, NO SH^&, I and many have been saying this all along.
I had thought that Roberts had ruled Obamacare as a tax in an effort to have this show back up in the SCOTUS where it will be found unconstitutional...fingers crossed.
In the dead of night, the bill original language from the house was stripped out of it and the senate replaced the language with what we know today as Obozocare.
You're absolutely right...no way around the origination clause if it is deemed a tax and originated in the upper chamber rather than the lower.
If it is found constitutional, I bet’cha the SCOTUS will find that the bill did originate in the house. Problem...it was nothing...nothing like it ended up.
That’s such an important distinction, and IMO, not repeated enough.
SCROTUS... wonderful, love it.
I wish I could take credit. First time I saw it was years ago around here, and I love it too. :)
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.