My understanding is that someone has to have “standing” in order for the case to be heard in court. (someone would have to pay the tax) Taxes have been imposed on Obamacare - and more to come.
In that video, it appears that congress was questioning the origination clause and wondering if Congress could be considered to have “standing”.
It is a short excerpt, so perhaps there is something missing that we don’t know.
Probably right. And this is another example why the standing rules are too strict. This legislation is too big to fail. Too many people would be left without insurance. Too many contracts would have to be broken if the law is voided. It should have been challenged as early as possible.
The most I think a judge could do now is treat it like it had a severability clause and void specific taxes.
Unfortunately, this is a horrible bill to have to challenge congress on it's origination bypass technique. It's not a bill the judge can easily void. So what does he do if he agrees the technique is unconstitutional?