Posted on 05/18/2014 11:13:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?
On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.
Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.
The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.
The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.
The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.
Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.
The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.
“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”
In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.
Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”
Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GOP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”
Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”
According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.
Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.
For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.
File Violation of RICO Statutes charges (class action?).
1. It qualifies.
2. Any individual or group can file those charges.
It’s unconstitutional. The supreme justice acted stupidly when he gave his decision.
That is an absurd response.
I'm no more a Constitutional Scholar than Omugabe is, but if memory serves me right not all House Originated bills conclude their journey into law. Nor do they all address taxation revenue.
Why wasn't one of those "dead" numbers used?
In other words, the number of the bill originated in the house; the remainder of the proposed bill, or "law"" did not.
Sending just a number to the senate for approval, a blank check, so to speak, has never happened in history, and is meaningless.
Even historic legal systems and lawyers are not that stupid. In spite of the historic observation that "The Law is A Ass..."
Of course it’s unconstitutional.
Roberts plainly said it’s a tax.
Is it a “tax” on alcohol, tobacco, firearms?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a “tax” on income?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a tax on foreign investments?
No. If you live and breathe you must pay.
Is it a tax on “living and breathing”?
Yes. It is a tax on life itself.
I wonder what the tea party would have been, if instead of a two cent tax on tea, the tax had been on life itself!
This demonstrates absolutely how out-of-touch Washington, DC. is. This, more than anything, shows us how they have LOST the ideas of the founders.
DC is producing laws that are the equivalent of inbred morons princes of the royalty of old sent out to terrorize the serfs
All the houses of power, all the factions, in DC now have an interest in protecting each others progeny because in the long run it supports their mutual "collective" power over you
Like I said all the houses of power in DC are now inbred royalty relatives like 16th century European kingdoms, it's one big family and your not part of it ..you service it
Not at all.
I am not aware of a legal way for We the People to put an end to illegal and unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
If all three are corrupt, who wields the checks and balances?
> When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?
Hopefully scorched earth...
I don’t think so, at least not in this case.
By the time an Article V convention is held, and 38 states ratify any changes to remedy the problem, the evildoers will be long gone, enjoying their ill-gotten riches.
I like the notion, publius, but if, as I maintain, the court system is as corrupt as the other two branches and refuses to hear the argument, then what?
Return the senate back to the states.
I agree!
Repealing the 17th Amendment has always been on my “To Do” list!
Along with the 16th, of course!
> Yep. The Court has already spoken.
I would be very interested to hear the REAL reason Roberts voted to impose this travesty of justice against the will of the people. I bet you our suspicions would be conirmed that he was threatened and blackmailed and that the ACA’s primary purpose was never about proving healthcare. Surely Roberts studied the damn thing. Well didn’t he?
Obama and Holder have given us the answer; both have said that various Attorneys General don’t have to enforce any law they don’t like, haven’t they? C.f., US immigration laws; various executive orders exempting favored businesses and labor unions FRom Obamacare? And others, of course — these are the most egregious.
I mean, if the head shed says states and the federal government can ignore laws they don’t like, surely, We the People can do the same?
<\sarcasm>
I confess that I am putting a whole hope of hope on this one.
SIGH.
My response isn’t absurd. Reid’s actions were. Don’t shoot the messenger for bad news.
Because Scott Brown was elected to Ted Kennedy’s old seat, so the Dems no longer had 60 votes to close debate on new bills in the Senate. So they had to use a bill that had passed in the house, because “reconciliations” don’t need more than 50 votes to close debate.
“When all three branches of the federal government (the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) behave in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, what remedy is left to We the People?”
Parliamentary Law at the local level remains and can be used to cleanup the political and judicial offices from the bottom up.
bkmk
That's the arguement that should be getting the most traction, but isn't.
Whatever Obama had on Roberts, he STILL has on Roberts. So this thing ain’t going to be overturned by the USSC.
The only way it will be overturned is if we elect Ted Cruz as POTUS and we have GOP controlled Congress.
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.