Posted on 10/03/2013 8:16:58 PM PDT by Kevmo
The Supreme Court declared that Obamacare was a tax. But taxes are, by law, supposed to originate in the house of representatives. Why doesn't the house GOP just say that they intend to follow the law as it has been backed by the SCOTUS?
They say they are simply funding the entire legal government as it stands. And since the SCOTUS has said that Obamacare is a tax, it needs to originate in the House and they originate it. See if it passes. Otherwise, according to the SCOTUS and current law, it is not a valid tax.
After you, Mr. Resident...
Oh lol...Sorry, I didn’t read properly. Still...lol!
Uhn k.
Luv yuh Kev but, I’m having a blonde moment and not getting the full import of your thought.
In the same breath Obama probably granted another exemption to the “law?”
This has been covered elsewhere. While the method was reprehensible, the ACA did (sort of) originate as a funding bill in the House. It started life as something to do with funding military housing. When it reached the Senate, Harry Reid used a technique known as a “shell bill”, where he deleted everything after the first sentence of the bill, and wrote in the ACA language. The “shell bill” strategy stretches the Senate’s authority to “amend” bills rather far, but so far this kind of thing hasn’t been challenged.
They are following the law. It’s called the constitution and it gives them the power and discretion to do exactly what they are doing.
1) SCOTUS has declared Obamacare a tax.
2) Taxes, by law, need to originate from the House of Reps
3) Obamacare did not.
4) Current Congress proposes to remedy that illegality by originating the proposal today. As originally worded. In the House.
5) See if Obamacare passes today.
6) Fund the rest of the guvmint.
7) One day a blonde was driving down the highway when she saw another blonde on the side of the road trying to row in a boat. The blonde pulled over and said “You know it’s people like you that give us blondes a bad name, if I knew how to swim I’d come out there and kick your ass”.
If they did it before, they can do it again. Basically, political Kabuki theatre. But this time the shell won’t say
“Military Housing”, it will say “Obamacare Funding”. The GOP can say they’re simply being honest with the American public and following the law.
They can keep doing that as well. This way, they direct attention to the illegality of the original law.
Soetoro has altered the law himself many times. It is no longer the law that was passed and ruled on. An executive order which isn’t that is a congressional law that isn’t. Totally unConsitutional.
It needs to be challenged, it is a direct violation of the constitution's intent.
All the better for the house GOP, then. They introduce the law as it was written, as it was titled, as it was intended, pointing out the illegalities of the original process. They let it stand or fall under its own merits.
I think it’s only the penalty/fine/punishment for not getting insurance that SCOTUS considered a tax. But you have the right idea. The House can re-set the penalty/fine/punishment/tax at their discretion. Make it $1 dollar per year and eliminate the progressive increase. $1 per year every year forever. If that’s all you have to pay to not comply 0bamaCare will be dead in it’s tracks.
Ooh, good one. I sure hope some conservative GOP members take note.
I hadn’t thought of it until I saw your thread. I may have to send it to Cruz, Paul, Lee, Gohmert and other select patriots tomorrow. I am only guessing but if only the House can institute a tax I’ll bet they have full control over how much it is and how it is structured.
The shell bill strategy is a blantant violatation of the Founding States purpose for making the Constitution's Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article I which you are describing. The fact that no lawmakers have challenged Reid's action indicates how badly corrupt the federal government is.
The fact that no lawmakers have challenged Reid’s action indicates how badly corrupt the federal government is.
***Now is the time to challenge it. Cruz has the courage and the wherewithal.
Good point.
Actually it is being challenged by Pacific Legal Foundation, as an illegal tax.
Sissel v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
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.