[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.

[ToastedHead]

Thank you. Need a few more reads to understand you said, but thank you.

[X-spurt]

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.