Skip to comments.
Obamacare’s doom (George Will)
Washington Post ^
| May 2, 2014
| By George Will
Posted on 05/03/2014 11:18:55 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
To: Brad from Tennessee
As nauseating as the ACA is, how the Senate was able to gut a House bill and re write it takes it to new heights of criminality.
This is the first I’ve heard about this trickery. The media was certainly quiet about it.
2
posted on
05/03/2014 11:28:15 PM PDT
by
CaptainK
(...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Brad from Tennessee
Unfortunately, I suspect that John Roberts will rule along with the four liberals, that the
Origination Clause is nothing more than one of the rules of the legislature, and that Supreme Court precedent is that neither the Judiciary nor the Executive may interfere in that area.
It would be a bad argument, and an inapt application of the precedent, but such trivialities did not stop him from thoroughly up-f*cking the understanding of necessary and proper, general welfare, or taxing authority.
4
posted on
05/03/2014 11:47:05 PM PDT
by
FredZarguna
(Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
To: F15Eagle
I read it earlier. It contradicts my theory that that moment, the moment for appeal has passed.
Based on the only entity with standing is the House. And anybody suing that’s not a house member will eventually be found to have no standing.
And that the House by not appealing immediately after the ruling that it was a tax, has tacitly approved (which is allowed).
5
posted on
05/03/2014 11:48:32 PM PDT
by
Usagi_yo
To: Brad from Tennessee
6
posted on
05/04/2014 12:05:59 AM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: Brad from Tennessee
Damn that George Will is smart. He is writing gotcha columns on facts that were brought up here in FreeRepublic forums within weeks of Obamaracare passage.
Cutting edge, just four years late, Georgie boy. I am sure picking out bow ties for ones ensemble is very time consuming and distracting.
7
posted on
05/04/2014 12:08:55 AM PDT
by
Cyman
(We have to pass it to see what's in it= definition of stool sample)
To: Brad from Tennessee
Re: Case law establishes that the origination clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates a particular governmental program and . . . raises revenue to support only that program. The second creates taxes that are analogous to fines in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitutions enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACAs tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the origination clause.
The quote is from Will's essay.
I don't have Will's confidence that the Appeals Court will find that ObamaCare must originate in the House.
Will cites two exceptions to the “origination” rule, and both exceptions sound a lot like ObamaCare to me.
To: Brad from Tennessee
Next thing you know, there will be an oxygen tax.
9
posted on
05/04/2014 12:20:18 AM PDT
by
dila813
To: FredZarguna
Roberts
rewrote the ACA to call a penalty a
TAX (he insisted).
He can't have it both ways.
His "tax" originated in the Senate, not the House, and that isn't Constitutional. With no severability clause, this either voids the whole thing--or it voids the SCOTUS.
10
posted on
05/04/2014 12:46:56 AM PDT
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: Smokin' Joe
From what I understand someone has to be subject to the tax before they can bring suit. This year is the first tax year that can happen.
11
posted on
05/04/2014 1:04:05 AM PDT
by
jdsteel
(Give me freedom, not more government.)
To: CaptainK
That wasn’t the only “trickery”. There were also some skipped steps in the reconciliation processes that were officially deemed to have been done.
12
posted on
05/04/2014 1:06:49 AM PDT
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: Smokin' Joe
His "tax" originated in the Senate, not the House, and that isn't Constitutional. With no severability clause, this either voids the whole thing--or it voids the SCOTUS. Supposedly, Roberts's fear of voiding SCOTUS was what caused him to switch sides (ignoring the various tinfoil-hat blackmail theories, amusing though they may be).
Now it's down to the Constitution's fine print, and the sheeple have had a chance to see what a mess ObamaCare is. And John Roberts is about to get a mulligan. How will he play it?
13
posted on
05/04/2014 1:13:04 AM PDT
by
cynwoody
To: Smokin' Joe
Your problem is that you're thinking logically.
Roberts' opinion for the majority is a typical liberal opinion: a hash of disconnected verbiage that really doesn't make any sense except to arrive at the conclusion he wanted.
You also apparently weren't paying attention when Roberts' wrote the first opinion on the PPACA. The majority found the mandate Constitutional, but it found other parts Unconsitutional. The lack of severability did not vacate the law then, and it will not vacate the law now.
Roberts' wanted the ACA to stand, and it's going to stand.
14
posted on
05/04/2014 1:59:05 AM PDT
by
FredZarguna
(Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
To: jdsteel
From what I understand someone has to be subject to the tax before they can bring suit. This year is the first tax year that can happen. Correct. There must be standing whereby a party has been violated according to the law. This being the first year anyone has standing, now is the time. The strategy was to run out the clock and get the ACA ingrained into society and everyone love it too much to logically and politically allow the suit to be viable. After 34 illegal delays by presidential fiat trying to do just that, there still is no love.
15
posted on
05/04/2014 2:13:34 AM PDT
by
USCG SimTech
(Honored to serve since '71)
To: lepton
That wasnt the only trickery. There were also some skipped steps in the reconciliation processes that were officially deemed to have been done. ...also something about severability...where if one part of the bill fails it call fails.
16
posted on
05/04/2014 2:18:37 AM PDT
by
spokeshave
(OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
To: CaptainK
What I don’t understand is WHY the Senate did it??? Pelosi and the democrats were in charge of the House. Why did they do this in the Senate rather than just write it in the House?
Will it turn out that the Pelosi/Reid egos were so huge they just ignored sound practice because they just thought they were above it?
17
posted on
05/04/2014 2:51:26 AM PDT
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
18
posted on
05/04/2014 3:04:30 AM PDT
by
RedMDer
(May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
To: CaptainK
This is the first Ive heard about this trickery. We knew all about Baucus' "shell bill" when Dingy Harry rammed it out of the Senate and Pelosi'a House Rats rubber stamped it in the middle of the night on Christas Eve, 2009, without a single Republican vote. But low information voters and the lame-stream media, as usual, didn't care.
19
posted on
05/04/2014 3:38:05 AM PDT
by
Timber Rattler
(Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
To: Brad from Tennessee
20
posted on
05/04/2014 3:45:07 AM PDT
by
Fear The People
(When the government fears the people, you have LIBERTY.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson