Posted on 11/20/2013 7:27:15 AM PST by don-o
On November 8, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) and thirty-nine other Republican members of the House of Representatives filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") based on the Origination Clause that will be heard by the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals in early 2014.
The case, Sissel v United States Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the Washington, D.C. District Federal Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iraq war veteran who lives in Iowa, where he owns a small business, on July 26, 2010.
The Origination Clause of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Not a word of the Affordable Care Act originated in the House of Representatives. Instead, using a legislative trick, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took an innocuous bill that had passed the House unanimously on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, removed every word of its text following the first sentence, and replaced it with the Affordable Care Act language.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
In all the chaos over the years, I’ve known some of this, but tell me if I have this right.
The House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (SMHOTA) 416-0.
It went to the Senate, where the moral-free Harry Reid kept the first sentence of SMHOTA and slapped the 2,000+ pages of Obamacare to it. A soulless judge deemed this an ‘amendment’, according to the article.
It went back to the House where it passed with 218 votes (not one Republican but including Bart Stupid as the 218th vote).
So, is the “Affordable Care Act” really named the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act”?
If Roberts has been NSA’ed, I wouldn’t get too hopeful.
SA 2786. Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3590, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec..1..Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS
Subtitle A--Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans
Sec..1001..Amendments to the Public Health Service Act.
Now you know why Sarah Palin and Freepers have been screaming to not piecemeal immigration reform.
Because the Senate Democrats will gut any immigration bill coming from the House and insert their version.
The comprehensive immigration reform bill that t the Constitution unless it suits their needs. the Senate passed earlier this year had taxes in it too. That’s against the origination clause. But democrats don’t care about the Constitution unless it suits their needs. They expected the House to cower on the heels of the 2012 reelection of Obama. They also had a lot of republican turncoats sign on with them (Rubio, McCain, Graham, etc.).
And Boehner was signaling he would bring the Senate immigration bill to the House floor for a vote until Michele Bachmann and other Tea Party conservatives confronted him with the Hastert Rule.
Keep an eye on Boehner. Keep an eye on Ryan. These are not our friends.
No, the Senate version went back to the House and was passed. The issue is that this is a shell game to get around the "origination" clause by taking a completely unrelated bill, stripping it and inserting entirely new language, then claim is still originated in the House because it had the same HR number.
If the USSC as a whole had any integrity (not holding my breath on that), they'd uphold the lawsuit 9-0 without any comment. Or let Scalia write a scathing batch of sarcasm demeaning the Senate's attempts at legislative trickery. I'm good with either.
Does anybody have the slightest hope that Roberts will strike DeathCare down as unconstitutional? This is a “minor” point to a man that argued, against all logic, that the fees were taxes.
And why would he suddenly turn on his masters in a “man-bites-dog” story line? I fully expect him to rule it is NOT a tax and give a million convoluted reasons for contradicting himself.
Why would the reason he reversed himself the first time have changed the second time?
“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not have the power to originate such a bill.7 The bill was considered and carried to a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,8 the bill of the House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had originally been reported on December 27,9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr. Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number10 This bill passed the Senate and became a law.11”
Hind’s Precedents Chapter XLVII pg 943
The Founders were gone by 1833 so this isn't constitutionally definitive. However something the congress has been doing with revenue bills for at least 180 years is not likely to now be overturned by a court.
But who knows anymore what they'll do...
He is still a good justice. I mean he gets everything right but this. I am stunned how some of you get you britches in a bunch because he didn’t go the way you wanted. I thought Justices were supposed to be non partisan. I actually think he did us a favor. If he would have abolished Obamacare, we may have lost the House and not get the Senate in 2014. I actually think John has done more good for conservatives then bad. Just wait until late Summer, early Fall when the companies start dropping people because the year extension is over. I truly believe that Obamacare is dead just not the way you wanted it. Obama would still be the honored god if not for Obamacare and you know it.
Is this really proof that Roberts is gay? Somw of you are obsessed with all things gay.
Of course it isn’t ‘proof’. But there is certainly something out there that ‘inspired’ Roberts rewrite his opinion on Obamacare overnight. Since we all have to live with the dire consequences of that, we have the right to speculate.
Read my 39 post. I am curious at all if you agree to any of it.
If he remains consistent then Obamacare is Kaput.
Thats as good an epitaph for a jurist as any, I guess.
Something tells me that the slavery thing was already illegal!?!
Are we talking about Chief Justice “Taney” Roberts?
I will agree that Roberts has made some good decisions on the court.
But saving Obamacare - if that was his intent - did us no favors. Our health care system is about to collapse because of it. Not only will that cause actual suffering and death, but it allows the left to deceive and harangue a distressed populace for single-payer.
I fear Roberts is compromised. The minority opinions on Obamacare refer to the minority in places, suggesting that at the very last moment he changed his opinion on a matter of great import. Some people who watched Roberts read his decision said his eyes were red and he appeared exhausted.
I fear he will remain “consistent”ly compromised and rule however he must to keep secret whatever he’s been threatened with.
bkmk
Yes. There was an actual vote. Nothing was "deemed passed," despite what you hear other posters holler.
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.