[dontreadthis]

this should work, in a constitutional republic

[faithhopecharity]

Yes. This should work in a constitutional republic. (Do you happen to know of any ?)

[dadfly]

you can fund pacific legal, you know. yes you.

[Eagles6]

About time.

Yeah, as if the Constitution still mattered.

[mrsmith]

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.

[Yogafist]

I am sure Roberts can write an argument that allows him to agree with the socialist side of the court to rule against America.

[Slyfox]

Obama is in the process of “executing” the presidency.

[ToastedHead]

So now does the Supreme Court have to argue against itself that it is not a tax after all?

[Usagi_yo]

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.

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.

[DannyTN]

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.