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

Paf Dvorak 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 
>>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.
>>
>><http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=2>Story 
>>Continues
>>
>>Paf Dvorak
>>
>><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

Paf Dvorak

<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130405/71670616/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list