Posted on 04/01/2013 6:01:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.
A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.
“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Gimmie a break! There is no place for the Constitution, rules or laws anymore.
With all the Roberts bashing at the time, don’t remember this particulR reasoning, although this could be a logical reason for his call.
Most folks, including some Freepers, rarely understand that reasoning and moves at the SCOTUS level are more like Chess than Checkers, except for the ultra-lib lesbo witches.
I believe, don’t quote me on this, that they cannot substantially change the language of a bill without going through committee. The more we read and know about how this bill came to life, the more corrupt it seems.
There will be PROMISES...wish we, Sometimes, could count on PROMISES being fulfilled.
It is a struggle, struggle....
True........but....The original bill in the Senate didn't mention a tax. It was a penalty if not complied with.
No shortage of ways to ignore the constitution when that is the intent of those in Congress or of the federal courts.
“I seem to recall a few people here claiming that was why Chief Justice Roberts called it a tax, so it could be smothered later on. Anyone else remember that?” I remember something to that effect....
That is entirely correct. In theory, the Supremes could rule that the Senate's replacement of a bill in whole with completely unrelated text constitutes a new bill and thus violates the Constitution's requirement that tax bills originate in the House. In practice, we'll lose on this one because it has been done and tolerated many times. It's a shame too - freedom was a wonderful idea while it lasted.
THANK YOU!
Many of us were pointing out the same thing before this abomination crawled its way through the courts!
Now that the GOP is caving on illegal immigration (Thanks Rubio!!), they will realize that the new population is going to want “free” healthcare.
Look for an “evolved” position on Obamacare from the GOP soon. Its no coincidence that the majority of the GOP did not support defunding it.
No Roberts called it a tax because it was and it was argued by Obama’s lawyers as a tax. He didn’t care how Congress made their sausage. Obama’s lawyers argued tax and it was published that they were doing this before the Roberts decision.
This was not all new. They followed the FDR playbook on Social Security and they openly admitted so (Biden opened his mouth about following the FDR playbook).
It’s the old adage that if we don’t learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.
Tons were written about this 3 years ago and Rush Limbaugh had many segments devoted to it. I researched it thoroughly and warned that it would be upheld as a tax while most everyone else were placing their bets on commerce clause arguments.
FDR argued for an old age pension fund later named ‘Social Security’. He saw that he would lose in court so he instructed his lawyers to argue it was a tax ***in court*** while at the same time claiming it was a pension premium ***in public***.
I hope the Pacific Legal Foundation is successful but I have my doubts. It can be said the House acquiesced and nothing more needs to be said.
In theory. In actuality, no one on that bench has the guts.
In theory, I should be a millionaire.
“I seem to recall a few people here claiming that was why Chief Justice Roberts called it a tax, so it could be smothered later on. Anyone else remember that?”
That would be me. And a few others who were partially clear headed and not believing that the sky is falling.
If this makes it to the Supreme Court, you can bet Roberts will be jumping up and down to rule for the Plaintiff.
I am hoping that the strategy is that the method of passage is unacceptable to SCOTUS and the reason that Roberts ruled the way that he did is so that two birds could be killed with one ruling.
Yes. Also, that he wanted to squash further abuse of the commerce clause.
I hope one of these efforts will succeed. McConnell also purportedly has a plan.
As I remember the argument, Harry Reid emptied the bill and stuffed it with his own version. The only thing that remained the same was the bill number with the HR attached to it. The argument is that so much was changed, it was actually a bill involving taxing that originated in the Senate.
Pretty much as I see it. Pesky rules won't stop the One.
“Pretty much as I see it. Pesky rules won’t stop the One.”
I believe Roberts actually has contempt for Obama and the process by which the bill was originated and passed. This has a chance to be Roberts “stick it up your ass” moment.
No pun intended...
I know I was among those that thought Roberts got a little too "cute" with his ruling. He didn't want to "appear political" by striking it down, but he gave conservatives and Republicans ammunition with which to deal with the law's implications.
Of course, the Republicans blew it last November, as they couldn't articulate the high taxes as a reason to elect Romney and appeal it. Whatever else the ruling offered from a legal standpoint remains to be seen. Is the GOP actively coordinating the law's downfall, or are they hoping for a miracle, that the law's implementation will implode on itself, pointing all the blame on Democrats?
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.