Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ACA is the lsaw of thre land/.
Republicans need to let this omne go.
maybe one day they will pass a budget
Get over it. How many times does this thing need to ho to court? Damn obstructionists.
The question was not whether the state or federal governments can tax behavior but whether the individual mandate was a tax or penalty. No one argued that the government lacks the power to tax. Likewise the Supreme Court, while ruling that a tax can reasonably be construed to have the effect of a penalty, never have they ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax. With respect to justifying a wrong with another wrong; the question should always be laid on its merits and if you are trying to point to inconsistencies in other similar but different cases you are not judging the case at hand on it's merits but justifying it via pointing to other "wrongs."
The question was not whether the state or federal governments can tax behavior but whether the individual mandate was a tax or penalty. No one argued that the government lacks the power to tax. Likewise the Supreme Court, while ruling that a tax can reasonably be construed to have the effect of a penalty, never have they ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax. With respect to justifying a wrong with another wrong; the question should always be laid on its merits and if you are trying to point to inconsistencies in other similar but different cases you are not judging the case at hand on it's merits but justifying it via pointing to other "wrongs."
Again, I don't think g5000 is 'justifying' anything. I'm certainly not. The mandate is flatout wrong in my view, regardless of what you call it. But it is fundamentally no different than other tax incentives that pollute our tax code at all levels. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree in opposing it on technical nomenclature issues. The difference between a tax incentive and a tax penalty is entirely superficial. And in that narrow sense, Roberts was right to rule as he did.
Where the Constitutionality of PPACA, and the mandate, is questionable (apart from my general conviction that discriminatory taxation should be banned outright) is the fact that Congress deliberately used ambiguities in the language to deceive the public. The President and Congress repeatedly claimed the mandate was not a tax, presumably to maintain the ruse that they weren't 'raising taxes'. They knew there was really no difference between tax incentives and penalties implemented via taxation, and hoped the court would agree. But they avoided calling it what it was to limit public opposition. To me that's a kind of fraud, and I'd hope such a thing is unacceptable - to voters if not the Court.
Does it really matter what they call it, a tax or a penalty because when tax time comes around and people are expecting a refund, they are going to be in for a big surprise. Either a reduced tax refund or none at all.
Now that the individual mandate in Obamacare has been deemed a tax (not a penalty as the president promised), a new Constitutional question arises. The United States Constitution commands that,
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”
But ObamaCare DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives! It originated in the Senate. Yes the House of Representatives passed H.R.3590, however, when they passed H.R.3590 it was called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” In other words, the House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate gutted the 6 page bill, added two thousand pages to it, and renamed it “An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
Now that the individual mandate in Obamacare has been deemed a tax (not a penalty as the president promised), a new Constitutional question arises. The United States Constitution commands that,
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
But ObamaCare DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives! It originated in the Senate. Yes the House of Representatives passed H.R.3590, however, when they passed H.R.3590 it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. In other words, the House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate gutted the 6 page bill, added two thousand pages to it, and renamed it An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
If the Supreme Court says it's OK to call a penalty a "tax" (when it wasn't), what makes you think they will hesitate to call HR3950 "originated in the House" (when it did)?
This case has no chance in the present Supreme Court. Better try something else.
Now that the individual mandate in Obamacare has been deemed a tax (not a penalty as the president promised), a new Constitutional question arises. The United States Constitution commands that,
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”
But ObamaCare DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives! It originated in the Senate. Yes the House of Representatives passed H.R.3590, however, when they passed H.R.3590 it was called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” In other words, the House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate gutted the 6 page bill, added two thousand pages to it, and renamed it “An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
If the Supreme Court says it's OK to call a penalty a "tax" (when it wasn't), what makes you think they will hesitate to call HR3950 "originated in the House" (when it did)?
This case has no chance in the present Supreme Court. Better try something else.
I find it charming how people, after seeing how the Supremes blithely rewrote the mandate's penalty into something it wasn't, assume the same Supremes will treat their own pet case any differently.
My 7-year-old isn't that naive.
If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down Obamacare on substantive constitutional grounds, why would he be a stickler for procedural errors?
Now that the individual mandate in Obamacare has been deemed a tax (not a penalty as the president promised), a new Constitutional question arises. The United States Constitution commands that,
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”
But ObamaCare DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives! It originated in the Senate. Yes the House of Representatives passed H.R.3590, however, when they passed H.R.3590 it was called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” In other words, the House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate gutted the 6 page bill, added two thousand pages to it, and renamed it “An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
If the Supreme Court says it's OK to call a penalty a "tax" (when it wasn't), what makes you think they will hesitate to call HR3950 "originated in the House" (when it did)?
This case has no chance in the present Supreme Court. Better try something else.
That's more or less the point I'm making. Though Publius has made a compelling argument that there are substantive Constitutional concerns over the origin of tax bills, I have hard time seeing the Court even consider it, much less overturn the law on these grounds.
You have a point. Under Roberts, the Judiciary no longer acts as a check against the power of a corrupted Legislature. He has said as much in his ruling on Obamacare.If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down Obamacare on substantive constitutional grounds, why would he be a stickler for procedural errors?
Hotze v. Sebelius: ObamaCare is Going Back to Court! And this Case is Much Stronger Than The Last!
We all remember from the last SCOTUS ruling that
1) The individual mandate is not authorized under the commerce clause because it forces people to enter into commerce; it does not regulate existing commerce.
2) The individual mandate was held constitutional under the congressional authority to TAX.
Now that the individual mandate in Obamacare has been deemed a tax (not a penalty as the president promised), a new Constitutional question arises. Article 1 Section 7 (The Origination Clause) of the United States Constitution commands that,
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
But ObamaCare DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives! It originated in the Senate. Yes the House of Representatives passed H.R.3590, however, when they passed H.R.3590 it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. In other words, the House passed the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate gutted the 6 page bill, added two thousand pages to it, and renamed it An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Senate then deemed it passed by the House of Representatives and sent it to the presidents desk for signing. Dont believe me? See the bills record HERE.
Indeed, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 WAS NOT a revenue raising bill, and thus, ObamaCare is in clear and very plain violation of Article 1 Section 7 of the United States Constitution! In Fact, it was a tax credit bill for veterans and raised zero revenue! That, among other reasons, was why the Senate used the word "penalty" in place of "tax." However, the Supreme Court has now considered it a tax, and thus, a question that was ignored during the first SCOTUS case now becomes the final hope of those wishing to abolish this tyrannical law. Obamacare in its entirety will go down in a ball of flames. What great times we live in! See below at 4:30 where they explain their legal challenge.
Dr. Steven Hotze Filing Suit Against Obamacare. (FULL PRESS CONFERENCE) - YouTube!
Read More Here A New Legal Challenge to ObamaCare
.
The damn thing has failed to give people their health insurance. It has done the opposite as it has raisin the price of insurance and dropped more people.
I mean wtf?
It has done none of the above. It hasn't failed to do anything yet. Once in place, we will see weather or not it is workable and what effects it will have. As of now, everyone is just speculating. Remember this simple fact; before the ACA was passed, insurance premiums were increasing by 10 to 15% every single year. It was becoming a nightmare. So many of you seem to forget this fact or are unaware of it because you only pay a portion of your health insurance premiums as the majority is covered by your employer. I pay my own, and I've seen how the cost has increased over the years.
If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down Obamacare on substantive constitutional grounds, why would he be a stickler for procedural errors?
Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constituion: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
It doesnt get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. They did this precisely so it didn't need to go through the House. Now that it is a tax, despite the fact that it is called a penalty in the bill, it must go through regular order and originate in the House as per Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution in order for it to be constitution. It did not do that!
If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down Obamacare on substantive constitutional grounds, why would he be a stickler for procedural errors?
Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constituion: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”
It doesn’t get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. They did this precisely so it didn't need to go through the House. Now that it is a tax, despite the fact that it is called a penalty in the bill, it must go through regular order and originate in the House as per Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution in order for it to be constitution. It did not do that!
There were at least 22 other taxes in the bill besides the individual mandate. The bill number that was passed did originate in the house, it was stripped of it's total language and the ACA was inserted. It has been an accepted practice in congress for decades so I wouldn't hold your breath on the court doing anything.
The damn thing has failed to give people their health insurance. It has done the opposite as it has raisin the price of insurance and dropped more people.
I mean wtf?
It has done none of the above. It hasn't failed to do anything yet. Once in place, we will see weather or not it is workable and what effects it will have. As of now, everyone is just speculating. Remember this simple fact; before the ACA was passed, insurance premiums were increasing by 10 to 15% every single year. It was becoming a nightmare. So many of you seem to forget this fact or are unaware of it because you only pay a portion of your health insurance premiums as the majority is covered by your employer. I pay my own, and I've seen how the cost has increased over the years.
