Posted on 11/15/2015 12:34:33 PM PST by Kaslin
The Constitution's Origination Clause requires that any tax-raising bill needs to be introduced in the House of Representatives. It is this text that gives the Pacific Legal Foundation a justifiable case against Obamacare's individual mandate tax on Americans that don't purchase health insurance, which was introduced in the Senate. In Sissel v.U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, PLF is representing Iowa small business owner and former Iraq combat medic Matt Sissel to challenge the constitutionality of the tax.
From an appeal PLF filed in October:
"The Origination Clause [in Article I] was designed to ensure as much democratic control as possible over the taxing power, by vesting that power in a House of Representatives elected biennially by the people. The [Circuit Court's] new test allows the Senate to circumvent that constitutional mandate merely by asserting that a tax the Senate originates is meant to serve some larger goal, or by embedding that tax in an omnibus bill that serves a variety of different goals.This upsets the longstanding balance of power between the House and the Senate and endangers the liberty secured by the Constitution's procedural requirements."
Sissel said he is determined to not let this health care law circumvent our basic rights:
"I'm in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution," said Sissel. "I strongly believe that I should be free and all Americans should be free to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I'm very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose to protect our freedom."
This is hardly the first time law-abiding Americans have tried to drag the Obama administration to court over the Affordable Care Act. Last year, Christian-owned businesses cried foul over the HHS' birth control mandate that forced them to violate their consciences and provide employees with abortifacients. The Court ruled in favor of religious freedom. Now, religious non-profits are hoping for the same outcome.
It's not just churchgoing Americans upset with the law. A new Gallup poll reveals that a majority of the general electorate,52 percent, disapprove of the ACA.
Should the Court agree with PLF, the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate will again be in question. Of course, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if John Roberts had voted the other way.
Traitor Roberts disagrees.
The Obama administration must have photos of the SC judges with kneepads on. I wonder how thick Roberts file is?
One of these days the SC judges will be in nursing homes. I hope they get their just dessert.
The opinions of the SCOTUS liberals should come with a bag of pretzels, because that is what they are going to do to logic in order to avoid the plain language of the document they are charged with interpreting.
Sadly, Kennedy (and probably Roberts) will join them because their emotions (”oh woes, we can’t let people lose their health insurance”) will win out over honesty.
As I recall, they carefully left out any mention of a tax in the ACA. But you’re forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty if you don’t & is enforced through the IRS. You can’t opt into Obamacare without revealing your income, because any subsidy is going to be based on what is on your tax return.
Good luck with that.
Every conceivable legal challenge to Obamacare will fail as long as Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are legislating from the bench.
We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation ruled by an oligarchy of 5 Supreme Court Justices with lifetime appointments.
Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer will all be in their 80s when the next President takes office (assuming that Obama has not already gotten to replace them with young, far left-wing liberals).
If Hillary is our next President, then a far left-wing oligarchy of Supreme Court Justices will be ruling over every aspect of our lives for the next 30 years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
True!!
Didn’t Roberts say it was a tax?
The rest of thee title is ‘Wrong’ House of Congress
++++
As I recall (a weak position I assure you), Harry Reid took a House generated bill and amended it with a few thousand pages and Obamacare was born.
Yes it is a Senate originated bill.
Yes it technically originated in the House.
Correct me if I am wrong, a strong possibility.
Our Chief Justice and 4 Leftist ideologues on the USSC will no doubt uphold it anyway.
No standing.
Inaction is action in itself. If the house ducked it responsibility, vote for better representatives.
— That imho is the likely outcome, that it’s tacitly approved if the house does not contest in a timely manner.
The SCROTUS already whipped the asses of WORKING Americans in this battle. Complaining isn’t going to go anywhere with Barry’s “court”.
In cases like this, SCOTUS will say, “It’s not a tax.”
In all others it will say “It’s a tax.”
Also, recall that Johnny Roberts had to decide the mandate was a tax in order to convince himself to let the ACA stand the first time around.
Moreover, the ACA contains plenty of literal taxes, such as the 2.3% tax on medical device sales, the surtax on investment income, the 40% "cadillac tax" on insurance plans deemed to be too good, the 10% tax on indoor tanning services, and a number of other direct and indirect taxes.
However the administration argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax. The court ruled in their favor and it is now adjudicated before the highest court in the land that it is a tax. However, I fully expect John Roberts to screw us again. If he does this is grounds for impeachment in any rational court.
Absolutely correct.
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.