Obama really has a "shell bill"...

[healthmyths]

Obama pulled a fast with with Congress but it may catch up with him after all!
His biggest lie that there were 46 million uninsured even though 10 million were not citizens, 14 million already covered by Medicaid and he counted 18 million that never NEEDED or Wanted insurance ends up really 4 million that truly need and want insurance.
This BIG lie that pushed through the HOUSE a bill that will NOW be shown to be Constitutional!

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.

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.
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.”

“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.”

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times

Bottom line.. Revenue raising bills MUST originate in the HOUSE.
But Obama's DoJ says the entire contents of the Original bill was stripped and replaced by Obamacare which in their eyes made it Constitutional.
When the Senate then added raising revenue schemes it became UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Publius1787]

Obama pulled a fast with with Congress but it may catch up with him after all!
His biggest lie that there were 46 million uninsured even though 10 million were not citizens, 14 million already covered by Medicaid and he counted 18 million that never NEEDED or Wanted insurance ends up really 4 million that truly need and want insurance.
This BIG lie that pushed through the HOUSE a bill that will NOW be shown to be Constitutional!

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.

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.
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.”

“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.”

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times

Bottom line.. Revenue raising bills MUST originate in the HOUSE.
But Obama's DoJ says the entire contents of the Original bill was stripped and replaced by Obamacare which in their eyes made it Constitutional.
When the Senate then added raising revenue schemes it became UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yes, it does have a shell bill. I have posted both of them here >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...acare-in-the-courts-round-ii.html#post7033035 (In the proper forum of course.)

 

[Clementine]

One thing is for sure, this makes is clear just how sneaky the Dems were when it came to passing that piece of shit. What they did was downright dishonest.

I do think they have a case considering it did not originate in the house as a revenue raising bill.

Most bills that pass have so little to do with the title they are given and most are loaded with tons of pork. This one is particularly nefarious because of how they shoved it through, knowing there was not enough support. They pulled every trick out of their hat and I doubt they care about the legalities. They lied about a great many things and pulled a fast one to make Obamacare law. They believe the ends justify the means, so will never admit that they are wrong no matter what.

 

[Publius1787]

One thing is for sure, this makes is clear just how sneaky the Dems were when it came to passing that piece of shit. What they did was downright dishonest.

I do think they have a case considering it did not originate in the house as a revenue raising bill.

Most bills that pass have so little to do with the title they are given and most are loaded with tons of pork. This one is particularly nefarious because of how they shoved it through, knowing there was not enough support. They pulled every trick out of their hat and I doubt they care about the legalities. They lied about a great many things and pulled a fast one to make Obamacare law. They believe the ends justify the means, so will never admit that they are wrong no matter what.

Sneaky or not, I think Obamacare has a good chance of crashing and burning in the courts. If it makes it to the Supreme Court upheld, though, SCOTUS is unlikely to take it up (This case makes a mockery of those on the SCOTUS who upheld the bill via the power to tax). If it makes it to the Supreme Court stricken, however, they will most likely hear the case. In any case, I am tired of cut and paste op's who repeat the already posted in the wrong area of the forum. Go here for better insight >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...acare-in-the-courts-round-ii.html#post7033035

 

[OKTexas]

The individual tax in Maobamacare were only the tip of the taxes in the bill, all were layed unconstitutionally as evidenced by the shell bill. The individual tax also fails to meet other constitutional test in that it does not comply with Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which requires direct taxes to be apportioned by the census. It also fails to meet the requirement of the 16th Amendment in that income is not the trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for it. Hopefully these issues will be addressed by SCOTUS but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Publius1787]

The individual tax in Maobamacare were only the tip of the taxes in the bill, all were layed unconstitutionally as evidenced by the shell bill. The individual tax also fails to meet other constitutional test in that it does not comply with Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which requires direct taxes to be apportioned by the census. It also fails to meet the requirement of the 16th Amendment in that income is not the trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for it. Hopefully these issues will be addressed by SCOTUS but I wouldn't bet on it.

This is still unlikely to go anywhere without congressional and state support bringing this challenge up in multiples of districts. As of now, it's hardly a story and there are some wacky district judges out there. If it makes it to the Supreme Court intact, they will not take the case. There’s little doubt in my mind on that. If it gets struck down, however, the SCOTUS must take the case.

 

[healthmyths]

The individual tax in Maobamacare were only the tip of the taxes in the bill, all were layed unconstitutionally as evidenced by the shell bill. The individual tax also fails to meet other constitutional test in that it does not comply with Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which requires direct taxes to be apportioned by the census. It also fails to meet the requirement of the 16th Amendment in that income is not the trigger for the tax, it is simply a multiplier for it. Hopefully these issues will be addressed by SCOTUS but I wouldn't bet on it.

This is still unlikely to go anywhere without congressional and state support bringing this challenge up in multiples of districts. As of now, it's hardly a story and there are some wacky district judges out there. If it makes it to the Supreme Court intact, they will not take the case. There’s little doubt in my mind on that. If it gets struck down, however, the SCOTUS must take the case.

Well how do we know Roberts wasn't aware of the unconstitutionality?
Roberts' holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
Read more at Suit: Roberts? ruling a poison pill for Obamacare