Vote the 2016 Republican Presidential Ticket:
Posted on 01/24/2016 2:10:25 AM PST by Fhios
A Supreme Court decision not to review the fact that although the U.S. Constitution requires tax bills to be launched in the U.S. House, Obamacare, which raises an estimated $800 billion in taxes, was launched in the Senate, will mean trouble for the United States, critics contend.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It's as simple as that. Nobody has standing except for the House and they have extra judicial means of dealing with it, immediately. If the House passes a bill from the Senate under such circumstances then it becomes law.
Wrong, because doing so makes the House of Representatives an accessory to a High Crime in violation of the Constitution.
You should read the constitution first before commenting. Then check case law.
...isn’t thee a “severability” issue with Obamacare....since Obama has arbitrarily changed several parts of Obamacare and added others....so the whole package should be thrown out...?
SCOTUS has been known to peek behind the curtain (IIRC, there is a case that had a finding relating to lack of quorum), but it lets this sort of egregious violation skate.
When Robert's wrote his opinion for the majority, he noted that the PPACA was "both Constitutional and Unconsitutional." Many people ignore that fact. Roberts cited specific parts of 0bamacare which were not Constitutional and were a legal nullity as a result.
Severability should have been discussed at that point and was not.
It was ignored by SCOTUS because they couldn’t get over the political hurtle standards that it has set for itself.
The Senate originated and the House passed the bill (not entirely the true story but close enough).
Just like when Congress flipped the requirements by turning the Iran treaty/agreement into a negative affirmation vote rather than a positive affirmation.
Allow me to point out that although locus standi has ancient origins and arguably may or may not be to some limited extent an implied restriction on the powers granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, it was not used by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1922; and locus standi is arguably unconstitutional to the extent it is employed to subvert the Constitutional imperative
“Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government....”
Note how this imperative has been acknowledged and addressed to various limited extents by similar legal systems.
Standing (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29
Standing or (locus standi)
Arguably, the 1922 implementation of Standing is another part of the overall effort to wrest control of Federal, State, and local government away from the citizens and place that control into the hands of a very small, corrupt, and self appointed elite group.
SCOTUS avoids peeking on a separation of powers doctrine. It doesn’t deny standing to plaintiff.
“SCOTUS avoids peeking on a separation of powers doctrine. It doesn’t deny standing to plaintiff.”
Yes, I’m very well acquainted with how they argue the point. That is why I suggested you look at the Wikipedia article to see how jurisdictions like Canada and so forth have taken notice of the injustice and taken actions to limit the abuse of this argument when it is used to facilitate abridgements of justice and a constitution.
The Justices are Federal officers with a sworn duty to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, and some of these sworn duties are not nullified by the so-called separation of powers. In other words, these judicial decisions cannot override the explicit Constitutional mandates to preserve the Republic. Arguably, the Republic is not preserved when no citizen is allowed access to the court in order to hold the Congress liable for High Crimes against the Constitution.
All levels and branches of our government have become so corrupted that they’re not even pretending anymore.
We agree on this point. SCOTUS is adept at evading its duty.
House keeping.........house keeping
The House never voted on Obamacare.
It was “deemed to have been passed” by Pelosi.
The Senate took a House bill that had nothing to do with Obamacare, kept the title but replaced the text with Obamacare and used the passage of the original bill in the House as the excuse that it originated in the House.
I don’t think that’s correct. You are right about the Senate gutting a House bill and completely replacing it with the ACA, that way they could say it “originated in the House,” but the House had to vote again...I remember them making a big deal out of getting one Republican vote to switch over.
Institutions designed to preserve free government have not only been corrupted, they serve to defend and sustain tyranny.
Elections alone cannot save the republic.
Article V while we can.
Vote the 2016 Republican Presidential Ticket:
The inevitable question is how could Brandeis and SCOTUS suddenly introduce the Standing doctrine and justify doing so, whether for the excuse to implement a separation of powers of the three government branches or otherwise, in 1922 after there had been no such doctrine during the prior 133 years of SCOTUS deliberations and history of the Republic? It may be argued that the application of the Standing doctrine is injecting SCOTUS into political interference with the separation of powers by usurping the power to discriminate between which Controversies it will and will not adjudicate for the benefit of a party to the controversy.
The neglect of their sworn duty under oath suggests this circumstance is yet another reason why a future Congress needs to set an example and impeach some Supreme Court Justices for their role in in such High crimes. The Senate and Senators need to have their wings clipped by repealing the 17th Amendment and by making it easier to remove and/or recall a Senator for failure to comply with the oath of office or failure to faithfully represent the constituency.
But Congress is the ultimate in failed institutions.
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.