Posted on 11/12/2013 7:18:08 PM PST by dontreadthis
Washington, D.C.; November 11, 2013: Pacific Legal Foundation's legal challenge to Obamacare received important backing in the form of an amicus brief filed by Congressman Trent Franks, R-Arizona, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, joined by several dozen other members of the House.
The amicus brief was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in PLF's case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services... snip PLF's challenge focuses on the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy a federally prescribed health insurance plan or pay a penalty to the federal government — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court identified as a “tax” in its 2012 ruling on Obamacare.
Because Obamacare's individual mandate is a tax — and, indeed, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxation, in all — the law should have been initiated in the House, where Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says new taxes must “originate,” in order to keep the taxing power close to the people. However, in defiance of this constitutional requirement, Majority Leader Harry Reid launched the law in the Senate, by taking an entirely unrelated House bill on housing for veterans, stripping it, and inserting the language that became Obamacare.
(Excerpt) Read more at pacificlegal.org ...
Yes. This should work in a constitutional republic. (Do you happen to know of any ?)
you can fund pacific legal, you know. yes you.
Yeah, as if the Constitution still mattered.
The “House bill on housing for veterans” was a revenue bill and so the Constitutional requirement was technically met.
This is of long practise- to ‘strike and replace’ a House bill in the Senate. The House can ‘blue slip’ - reject- a ‘struck’ revenue bill if they are opposed.
Maybe the courts will find the whole practise unconstitutional but I doubt it and don’t see anything special about this case to base a unique ruling upon.
I am sure Roberts can write an argument that allows him to agree with the socialist side of the court to rule against America.
Obama is in the process of “executing” the presidency.
So now does the Supreme Court have to argue against itself that it is not a tax after all?
The court, as an institution, didn't sign onto Justice Roberts' bizarre interpretation. It constitutes only an "advisory opinion" as to why he voted as he did.
No other justice concurred. Ergo, there is no existing ruling that the penalty is a tax.
That is a negative affirmation process. Meaning it is the House's prerogative in accepting the bill or not. Accepting means the house proceeds with it's business. Denial is when the bill is blue-slipped.
This has been done often enough so that the Senate really tries to restrain itself on revenue bills, and the only time a Senate bill of that nature is considered is when it's pre-arranged.
So if indeed, that is what happened, a revenue bill originating in the Senate, then approved by the house, then no. No ordinary lawsuit will do as individual congressmen don't have standing to sue. It's a political process. That means the House as a full body has the standing, but not individual members.
It's typical of bicameral legislation.
If there’s no existing ruling, how does the lawsuit stand? Can’t they argue it didn’t have to originate in the house?
(Sorry if these are dumb questions. Law appears to be mental juggling of facts that can change over time.)
Thank you. Need a few more reads to understand you said, but thank you.
Because Obamacare's individual mandate is a tax... the law should have been initiated in the House
Just because this is a “long practice to ‘strike and replace’ a House bill in the Senate”, does not mean it is Constitutional. Anyone know if this ‘strike and replace’ has ever been found Constitutional? Maybe not. Sure sounds like a trick to get around the Constitution, which may be “long standing” because both GOP and dems liked the ability to use it, thus no challenges.
As I have conjectured previously, maybe just maybe our much maligned Judge Roberts was actually clever enough to give nobamacare a deadly poison pill when he had it declared a tax.
AND because in the dem’s haste to get this passed before someone jumped ship, they forgot to insert a “severability” clause, which means if any, even a minuscule portion is ruled un-Constitutional, the whole Bill must go back to the House to start again.
To those who say the Constitution or what the SCOTUS may say no longer matters, I say if that’s the true situation, all is already lost and the only recourse will be SHTF R2.
It should work.
The court will have to rule on whether gutting a house bill and completely replacing it’s contents consitutes originating in the Senate. It should. The problem then becomes what test should be applied as to whether something is just an amendment or an originating rewrite.
Should be interesting.
Basically say’s — that plan ain’t going to work. Standing and separation of power issues.
However, I think I understand their argument better now, they’re claiming it was all right when the penalty was a fine, but by changing the fine to a tax, SCOTUS has given Congress another bit at the apple. Since the house never had the chance to actually blue slip the bill from the senate because of the legal understanding at the time was it was a fine. Now that it’s a tax they feel they’re entitled to blue-slip the bill.
The “standing” restriction is said to go wide open on the date the ACA goes into effect, 1 Jan. 2014. Then anyone affected by the tax has standing.
My contention is that the dems (House, Senate and POTUS) reach vastly exceeded their grasp on this monumental law and that once again the Founders will be proven to be smarter than potential tyrants than we ever imagined.
Well, if the practise was done by our Founders, and I suspect it was practised by those who wrote the Constitution, then as a conservative constitutionalist I deem it constitutional.
You may, like the Supreme Court often does, spit upon the judgement of our Founders and reject their practises.
The tax is being unequally applied; some don't even have to pay it; isn't it also a case of equal protection?
“...at the time was it was a fine. Now that it’s a tax they feel they’re entitled to blue-slip the bill.”
Thanks, that’s enlightening. Though I still gravely doubt anything can come of it.
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.