Why the Individual Mandate is still constitutional

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | June 29, 2012 | Jamie Dupree

[madprof98]

Since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Obama health law on Thursday, I have received a number of messages from listeners and readers arguing that because the Justices found the individual mandate was a tax, it was unconstitutional, as that plan didn't start in the House.

"Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states that 'All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House,'" is what the Constitution says, these readers argue.

They go on to say that since the mandate was added in the Senate, and not in the House, the entire plan should have been found unconstitutional.

Sounds simple enough, but I'm sorry, that's not going to derail the Obama health law.

Let me explain.

At issue is bill number H.R. 3590, which became the legislative vehicle for the Obama health law, known officially as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

When that bill originated in the House of Representatives, it was known as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009."

That bill was approved by the House on October 8, 2009 by a vote of 416-0, and then sent to the Senate.

As Democrats started to push ahead on health care reform in the Senate, they knew about the constitutional prohibition stated above, that all revenue bills must start in the House.

So, they found a legislative vehicle - H.R. 3590 - and simply amended that revenue bill with the language that ultimately became the revenue provisions of the health care law.

The Senate passed that bill on Christmas Eve of 2009, and then the House approved that plan on March 21.

The House also approved another bill, H.R. 4872, which made a series of changes in H.R. 3590. The House acted on March 21; the Senate approved that same plan on March 25, 2009.

If the bill approved by the Senate had any constitutional issues dealing with tax revenues, it would have been stopped in the House by what's known as a "blue-slip" objection, as the House protects its constitutional power to act first on revenue and spending bills.

There is a lot of legislative history to support the Senate taking a minor revenue bill from the House and making major changes; I saw it up close and personal the first time in 1982 when the Senate used a miscellaneous revenue bill and turned it into a major tax measure that was ultimately signed by President Reagan.

So, to all those sending me notes that say the Obama health law is unconstitutional now because the individual mandate was declared to be a tax by the Supreme Court, sorry, but that's just not the case.

The mandate's tax penalty was included in a revenue bill that originated in the House.

There is no constitutional issue on that front

[diogenes ghost]

Right, but wrong.

Yes, he did rule it unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but constitutional if considered a "tax bill".

And any "tax/revenue bill" must originate in the house, which this one did, albeit with ugly machinations.