[Rushtalk] Lawsuit over health care tax could kill Obamacare
notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Fri Apr 5 20:40:30 MDT 2013
At 12:07 PM 4/5/2013 -0400, John A. Quayle wrote:
> 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?
Like the people who helped millions onto the boxcars in Germany.
The "money" is going to be borrowed from the future.
>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
>>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.
>><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk