[Rushtalk] Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Fri Apr 5 10:07:33 MDT 2013

         There are also idiots called "Navigators" (and you all 
thought that was an SUV made by Lincoln, I'll bet!). What these are 
will be people (union thugs, likely) specifically federally hired 
(with no background in healthcare) to guide you through the Obamacare 
paperwork process. California has asked for 21,000. You just know 
this will reach into the hundreds of thousands of people. Where is 
the money gonna come from?

At 11:25 AM 4/5/2013, Paf Dvorak wrote:

>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."
>The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in 
>November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight 
>Origination Clause cases in its history and "has never invalidated 
>an act of Congress on that basis."
>The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to 
>rule on the Justice Department's motion "any day now," said Pacific 
>Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.
>The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn't the only lawsuit 
>against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to 
>wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the 
>freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control 
>requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.
>In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the 
>bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the 
>Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the 
>bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced 
>entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and 
>Affordable Care Act.
>SEE RELATED: Texas leaders stand firm against Obamacare
>Using H.R. 3590 as a "shell bill" may be inelegant, but it's not 
>unconstitutional, according to the government motion.
>"This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause," said 
>the brief. "It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to 
>H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any 
>way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, 
>without running afoul of the Origination Clause."
>The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell 
>bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved 
>the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.
>"Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not 
>originally a bill for raising revenue," said the Pacific Legal 
>Foundation lawsuit. "Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate's 
>gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a 
>bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are 
>therefore inapplicable."
>The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed 
>revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was 
>incidental to the bill's mission.
>The Affordable Care Act's central purpose is to "improve the 
>nation's health care system," and it fulfills that goal "through a 
>series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have 
>nothing to do with raising revenue," said the government brief.
>Mr. Sandefur disagrees. "What kinds of taxes are not for raising 
>revenue?" he asked.
>Paf Dvorak
><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130405/06737601/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list