A link to the Video:
It was a House bill.
If it’s a tax they overturn it with a simple majority, filibuster-proof, via reconciliation
Here's the House vote on that bill before it was gutted by amendment in the Senate: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll768.xml
Notice the bill history
They used every trick in the book to overcome opposition.
“According to Ben, then if Obamacare is a tax as per the USSC, then the bill had to originate in the house.”
All of these articles decrying the legality of ObamaCare, or attacking it on procedural grounds, assume that Obama gives a rat’s *ss about the customary rules and regulations of the American legislative process - or even the constitution.
Clearly, he does not.
And all of the opinions rendered about how the Republicans are going to nullify it later ignore the twin facts that: 1. RomneyCare preceded ObamaCare by several years, and it is therefore highly unlikely that Romney - assuming he’s elected - will do anything at all about this new law; and, 2. The Republicans are a fighting bunch - they’re most certainly not; they’re all out to pasture baaaing while the democrats shear them or simply asleep and serving time while they collect enormous salaries, gigantic benefits, and generous pensions for doing absolutely nothing but posturing for cameras and writing fictional letters home, mailed with their franking privileges, telling everyone what a big job they’re doing.
Hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but when Roberts blew it, it was thereupon destined to stay blown.
Read the decision. The pertinent legalese is between pages 39-44. It's a logical abortion worthy of Alice in Wonderland.
It will be easier to repeal because it’s a tax bill now.
No. Read the opinion (said the lawyer) And, believe it or not, saying it is “taxing authority” doesn’t make it a tax.
It has taken me a while to realize finally that it makes no difference who controls Versaille on the Potomac. Whether it is the Democans or Republicats, the result is the same. Elections have become the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses, designed to placate our desires for excitement.
In 2008, we had the “choice” of McLame or 0bambi. Let’s see, they agreed on abortion, immigration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bailouts, healthcare and everything else of consequence. Wow, some choice!
In 2010, we elected a bunch of new representatives who were going to take back our government. How’s that worked out? Name one accomplishment that has restored our freedom from the previous session of Congress. You can’t because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.
Now, in 2012, we have a “choice” between reelecting 0bambi or electing a white 0bambi. Nothing will change. They will continue to take our freedoms away, one by one.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
IF SECESSION IS NOT THE ANSWER, THEN REVOLUTION MUST BE.
What I think is more important is that I don’t believe HHS can issue waivers to a tax. Waivers would have to come from the House. As soon as those unions found out they can’t be waived out of a tax, they’ll be the first to scream about this law.
There is a lie (probably many) being told by some Obama spokesman. They say this tax will only affect a tiny few who can afford health insurance and don’t buy it, and will go to emergency rooms for care and “freeload” on the rest of us by not paying for the care.
That’s nothing but a lie because if someone can afford thousands per year for health insurance, then they have income and/or assets. If they then go to an emergency room and do not pay, the hospital will use every collection method available to collect from anyone with income and/or assets. They would not be allowed to “freeload”. They’d have income garnished or have assets seized. The only people who could get away with that scenario at present are probably illegal aliens.
Just one more way in which Obamacare is misrepresented to the American people.
The law is so convoluted in process and principle that there will be multiple effects things that just render it obsolete. First, people are required to comply with the law but there’s no enforcement mechanism that can force them. Second, states are not required to expand Medicaid and are required to balance the budgets so now how is the Government going to add the 30 million to the state’s rolls?
You are missing the point - the Roberts decision boils down to “the only rules that will be enforced are those that advance the revolution”.
Most of these problems were mentioned in the decent by the conservative justices. They touched on the problems that the bill did not originate in the Senate and also the question of whether it was a direct tax requiring apportionment.
What I did not read from them was the flip side of that argument that was settled in Hylton v. United States. If it is not a direct tax requiring apportionment, then it is required by the Constitution to be uniform. But even Justice Roberts admits that this tax is not uniform because, as he cites, Indian Tribes (and others) are exempted.
It was a scathing decent and well worth the read. Roberts, who was described during the nomination process as the smartest guy in the room, has written an historic opinion that will become an exemplar of bad constitutional law. I think he wanted to be a John Marshall; he will be a Roger Taney with a Bill Clinton type legacy.
Invalid or not, with this ruling Congress can now prescribe or ban any and everything that individuals would do or possess or buy or sell by passing a law and punishing unapproved behaviour with a tax penalty rather than with judicial trial and jail time. There is no limit now to wha the government can regulate. It is officially Congress that can do it but Congress will delegate everything to Departments and Bureaus and Offices. This grants total regulation of everything in life to Congress and functionaries and tax collectors.
Rush said yesterday that Reid took a House bill, gutted it, and came out with ObamaCare. If that is true, then it did originate in the House. The Senate is supposed to propose their version of any law, and it can be 100% different than the House version.
More of interest to me is how a tax can be levied against some and not against others based on what they do not have.
That doesn’t sound to me like equal treatment under the law.
Revel, you can’t afford a car, so we’re taxing you, but not your neighbor, for being a transportation deadbeat who makes it necessary for us to run trains.
That doesn’t seem to pass the equal treatment requirement to me.
the issue in play is that it is not in the enumerated powers and not justified by the "commerce clause" so it should have been overturned as unconstitutional , PERIOD ! simple as that !
the Supreme Court should have made that clear, they are woefully incompetent lawyers in robes judging over socialist utopia bizarro world
Rush says this won’t matter that it technically originated in the Senate. As for it being a tax, that makes in constitutional. I don’t get the repubs screaming it’s a tax. That makes a good ruling and a valid law. What they should be screaming about are waivers.
And they should introduce a bill removing congress’ exemption from participating. Let Nancy vote against that.