Posted on 06/28/2012 1:38:48 PM PDT by Law is not justice but process
I was discussing the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare with a friend, and he brought up an interesting point. If the Obamacare mandate is only valid as a tax (being, as the court held, invalid under the Commerce Clause), then would it not have to abide by all the procedural requirements of a revenue bill?
As I recall, the Obamacare bill that passed originated in the Senate and was then taken through conference and passed by the House.
In fact, all revenue bills are required to originate in the House.
Since Obamacare is only valid as a tax, and all tax bills must originate in the House, and the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, would the bill not be procedurally invalid?
I had the same question. It was also passed by reconciliation in the Senate because it was not considered a revenue bill which would have required a 60-40 vote.
That occurred to me also, but then it seems the SC would have then ruled on that issue. However, maybe protocol is that tax bills aren’t deemed invalid until levied, enforced, whatever.......
There was a phony revenue bill sent over by the house, then gutted and Obamacare put in. They knew what they were doing. It was insidious the whole way.
It has been asked at least twice today
My question is does the 51 votes in the Senate wins with no filibuster rule apply to the repeal of a tax bill?
I sure as hell hope it does.
I know that there is nothing we can do now that the freaks in the black robes have spoken but you're really given me something to think about. This government is so corrupt. What happened here might not be "unconstitutional" but it does to appear to be illegal.
I also thought that a tax bill required a 2/3 vote to pass. Since it was not pass as a tax it thought on a majority vote.
I an not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV, but I heard that somebody has to pay the tax before they can sue. Will somebody pay the tax and then sue because this law did not originate in the House of Representatives?
I thought it was the other way around
You really think the Constitution matters anymore?
It also allows for recess appointments when the Senate is in recess (actually, it only allows recess appointments for vacancies that actually occur when the Senate is in recess), but The Won makes recess appointments when the Senate is actually still in session, and nobody says squat.
This paradigm only exists because of the word “Tax” thrown in the decision.
This is a mandate with fines levied for Failure to Comply. And thats it.
You can’t “Tax” someone for not buying something - Please show me a definition of taxation that includes this concept.
It is a mandate and a fine - and it Quacks like a duck
“but then it seems the SC would have then ruled on that issue.”
Wouldn’t it have to be originally challenged on that issue?
Maybe, but wouldn’t you be inclined to call the issue moot or something along those lines if in your mind it was a “tax” but wasn’t properly enacted? Maybe “ripe” is the term I’m looking for, not sure.
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.