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 ...
True, BUT it could have proved an arduous and long drawn out affair to fight it as Commerce. That is why I contend Roberts pulled a fast one on the dems.
That fight is over. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the Commerce Clause did not authorize the Obamacare tax/penalty.
That is why I contend Roberts pulled a fast one on the dems.
He rescued it for the dems. The measure would have been defeated had Roberts not deemed it a tax and then OK'd it. It stretches common sense to argue that Roberts rescued the bill so it could be destroyed it later.
Doesn’t matter - anyway you slice, dice , and parse it, they are clearly violating the spirit of the law. It sucks. Big Time.
That's true and I hope SCOTUS realizes that and figures out a way to put a stop to it.
That's true and I hope SCOTUS realizes that and figures out a way to put a stop to it.
“A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE: for the Use of the Senate of the United States.BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.” consists almost entirely of only references to precedents from Parliament.
The procedures of Parliament were used by our Founders not just because they were familiar with them but because they have true merit. They’re followed by just about every bicameral legisature in the world!
A pertinent difference in our legislature is that we did not maintain the British requirement that revenue bills not be amended by the upper House.
Blackstone/Tucker: “The exclusive privileges of the house of commons, and of our house of representatives, with some small variation are the same. The first relative to money bills, in which no amendment is permitted to be made by the house of lords, is modified by our constitution so as to give the senate a concurrent right in every respect, except in the power of originating them; and this upon very proper principles; the senators not being distinguished from their fellow citizens by any exclusive privileges, and being in fact the representatives of the people, though chosen in a different manner from the, members of the other house; no good reason could be assigned why they should not have a voice on the several parts of a revenue bill, as well as on the whole taken together.”
http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm
A priceless source for understanding the Constitution. It is best read not for seeking to make a point but for seeking understanding.
No one argues that the operations of our legislatures does not follow general Parliamentary Procedures.
You still offer no evidence or documentation backing your claim that the Founders circumvented the Constitution by “practice” enabling the Senate to originate revenue Bills via “substitution”.
Unless I see more than your opinion or supposition, this is the last I will discuss this subject, my FRiend.
My point is that since the Commerce Clause’s invention, there have been many attempts to cut it off, none have thus far succeeded. There is no indication that ruling the necessity to keep it with the Commerce Clause would have killed the Bill. I don’t think the SCOTUS wanted to get into any Commerce Clause legitimacy argument, period.
But by declaring the forced purchase of insurance was instead a tax, it got away from the Commerce Clause and put it squarely up against Origination.
Now as to whether or not we will ever know for certain this is a poison pill ploy by Roberts, or was him saving ACA is another thing. Politics and Constitutional Law are a very intricate chess game, even though we citizens would prefer it to be checkers. I suppose the proof shall be in the pudding when and if Roberts goes to bat for ACA in other arguments such as Origination. Until then I prefer to look at this glass as half full, not half empty.
Ditto that.
Browsing through Daschle’s in my easily distracted manner, you’re in luck as the first EXACT same case occured merely 180 years ago in 1833- just after the Founders were gone LOL!
(Of course “substitution” was a common occurance in amending bills generally- which the Constitution specifically allows the Senate to do on revenue bills- and would not be of note.)
“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of
July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry
Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth,
of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not
have the power to originate such a bill.7 The bill was considered and carried to
a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,8 the bill of the
House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had
originally been reported on December 27,9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr.
Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been
moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number10 This
bill passed the Senate and became a law.11”
Enjoyed the browse. Though you will not be persuaded you can be educated... Freegards.
OOps!
“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of
July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry
Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth,
of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not
have the power to originate such a bill.7 The bill was considered and carried to
a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,8 the bill of the
House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had
originally been reported on December 27,9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr.
Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been
moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number10 This
bill passed the Senate and became a law.11”
...Is from Hind’s Precedents not Daschler’s.
Chapter XLVII pg 943
I wonder what it costs to buy a Chief Justice.
Lol
After a loss they asked USC football coach what he thought off his teams execution. He said he thought it would be a good idea.
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.