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.
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.
This is a bit confusing to me. Back when this happened, I read that Nancy Pelosi stripped the bill, and dropped in the senate bill. The House already had it’s own ideas, and didn’t like the Senate version that much.
However, because the Senate didn’t have the votes to pass it again, this is what they did. Pretended that the bill originated in the House. Since it had already passed the Senate, IIRC, the Senate didn’t have to vote on it.
Hence a bill originating in the house, was actually voted on in the senate first, before being voted on in the house. Does that make any sense at all? If the house originates a bill, shouldn’t it pass the house first? Any way whatever they did was a crock of rot!
Expect to hear what difference does it make anyway - the house approved it.
Informative post. Thanks.
So basically you’re saying that the House could have struck this, but didn’t. Right?
Wouldn’t John Roberts would have to reverse himself to sustain this challenge? In the original ruling, he turned the penalty into a tax and then he approved it. If he were of a mind to overturn it on the basis of the Origins Clause, he could have done so then. I don’t think SCOTUS will touch this.