Posted on 11/12/2013 12:39:40 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Forty House Republicans filed a brief last week in support of a legal challenge against ObamaCare that argues the law imposes billions of dollars in new taxes but did not originate in the House, as tax bills must under the Constitution.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) spearheaded the effort by filing a "friend of the court" brief on Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. That brief argued that ObamaCare violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution, which holds that all bills for raising revenue "shall originate in the House."
The brief recounted how ObamaCare was ultimately passed — the Senate took an unrelated bill that gave tax breaks to certain veterans, and added what ultimately became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
"If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill which does not raise taxes and pasting it on the 'Senate Health Care Bill,' and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, in explicit contravention of the supreme law of the land, then the American 'rule of law' has become no rule at all," the GOP brief said.
"In every plain English language sense of the word both today and in 1789, ACA “originated” in the Senate," it added.
The brief said the Origination Clause was an important principle in the Constitution that was designed to ensure representatives of American citizens make tax decisions. It also said the Constitution makes it clear that the power to tax lies with the House.
"The Origination Clause was a key Constitutional provision upon which the Founders insisted to protect the American people from confiscatory taxes; they reposed such power to initiate any taxes i the 'People's House' to be exercised by those representatives closest to the citizens," Republicans wrote.
"The Origination Clause thus serves an important bulwark to protect the liberty of our citizens. If the interpretation of the Origination Clause by the court below is not reversed, that Clause will be rendered a dead letter."
The case is Sissel v United States Department of Health and Human Services. It was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Matthew Sissel, a small business owner.
A district court has already dismissed the case, but that led PLF to file an appeal over the summer. Oral arguments in the case are likely next year.
NEXT YEAR! The Constitution usurped, and the Districts not even the Supremes get it NEXT YEAR?!?
SHEESH!
Great, but three years after the fact?
That constitution thing is so silly.
Let's recall that senators used to look out for the interests of their employers, the states. Consider the chance that presidents would bother to nominate radical lawyers hostile to the Constitution in general, and the 10th Amendment in particular, to a federal bench.
ABove pay grade of Supreme Court. They’d never understand it enough to rule correctly.
Has to be. The courts can’t rule on a tax until it’s enacted and people actually start paying it. They’ve filed at the earliest possible opportunity it appears.
FORWARD!
Thanks.
And let’s not forget that all taxes must be proportioned equally which makes all the exemptions unconstatutional
Most of us saw this problem with the bill’s passage before it was passed.
How to get lost in the weeds. Useless appeal to a document and system of laws and procedures that is largely discredited and shunned.
Hey, Democrats...
This is your WAY OUT.
If you have an ounce of brains left you’ll sign on to this.
The medical device tax part of Obamacare became effective January 1, 2013.
“A district court has already dismissed the case . . .”
Really?
So, Ocare originates in Senate but with mandate considered a fine. Roberts declares it a tax. If tax, had to originate in House right?
I can’t remember what stunt Reid pulled but didn’t he change an old House bill & turn into Ocare bill?
Obamacare was written calling it as a fine, which means it can be applied administratively - i.e. they can grant “waivers”, deciding who does and doesn’t have to pay it. I don’t believe there’s any constitutional basis for Sebelius to be granting anyone a tax exemption.
“Really?”
Yes. It really helps to read the article. Try it.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Obama says his Obmamacare/Affordable Care Act is not a tax...period. Justice John Roberts says OBCARE is a TAX!!!
You’re right, that alone should bury this thing.
Thank God, but they should somehow get it moved up because of the impact it’s having on lives this year, not in 2 years. I think they should appeal for an emergency hearing.
That said, I have always thought this was Roberts’ intent, but for some reason, nobody picked up on it. I don’t know why he didn’t find it flat out unconstitutional on its face, but whatever, I think he ruled it a tax precisely so that it could be attacked on those grounds.
This would also lead to the overturning of many other acts unconstitutionally “passed” in the Senate and executive orders that have impinged on the privileges of Congress.
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.