|
OBAMUNISM, The Party,
| “
|
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.” [FULL]
Works just fine in the laboratory, but in our Obama world it's just
another troublesome fly.
Sigh.
Why?
Cry.
|
The Grinning Celt
|
” |
|
It seems not to matter a whit, but the bill was passed using "reconciliation". Reconciliation is not allowed to be used for things that last longer than 10 years... {per Congressional rules?} So, from the get-go, it should have been blocked by the very rules that Harry and crew put in place.
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS will not take up the 'tax' consequences until there has been some tax revenue collected, as it is not 'ripe' until someone is actually 'hurt' by the bill.
I still don't get how something can be 'viewed' as a tax when it was specifically written to NOT be a tax. Take the bill as it was written, not as you interpret it to be. Roberts, you bleeped up, and should have thrown it back to Congress for re-write, instead of doing their job for them. IMO.
tomw
Since Obamacare is not a "mandate" but "merely a tax", then SCOTUS is way off base here. A tax, especially a Federal tax, is definitely a mandate. For if one does not pay whatever tax is being applied to whatever is being purchased or otherwise imposed by law, that tax is a mandate. That means if that tax is not paid the purchaser will be fined and/or jailed for not paying said tax. If that is not a mandate, then nothing is.
ReplyDeleteI have not been to college, but even I know that. It seems to me that Chief Justice Roberts is, or was, attempting to redefine the word "mandate". He is supposedly a Republican but is actually just like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, a Democrat in Republican clothing. By trying to redefine "mandate, Roberts is also attempting to be a latter-day Noah Webster.
There seems to be no end to what the liberals, Democrat and Republican alike, will try in order to advance their own agendas. And the Komrade Marxist Liar-in-Chief temporarily living in the extremely high-priced government housing on Pennsylvania Avenue is the worst of the lot.
From my understanding...this hasn't a chance.
ReplyDeleteOften in the past, the Senate (D or R) has inserted such a bill into a "shell" of something already originated in the House and moved forward as such. Odd, but apparrently par for the course.
I'd *love* it to work, but I have serious doubts.