ObamaCare is Going Back to Court! And this Case is Much Stronger Than The Last!

[Publius1787]

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 president’s desk for signing. Don’t believe me? See the bill’s 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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GbauqbkzeEw#]Dr. Steven Hotze Filing Suit Against Obamacare. (FULL PRESS CONFERENCE) - YouTube[/ame]!

Read More Here A New Legal Challenge to ObamaCare



.

 

[dblack]

If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down Obamacare on substantive constitutional grounds, why would he be a stickler for procedural errors?

 

[Publius1787]

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!

 

[Little-Acorn]

And if he was willing to change the actual legislation he was judging, erasing the word "penalty" wherever it appeared (nineteen different places) and replace it with the word "tax", and then approve it....

....who says he wouldn't simply replace the word "House" in Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution with the word "Senate", and then rule in favor this time too?

 

[dblack]

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 doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite 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!

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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?

 

[Publius1787]

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 doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite 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!

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

Wrong again. Roberts didn't have the authority to rule on Article 1 Section 7 grounds because those were not the grounds the individual mandate was challenged or defended on. Furthermore, when it is the plain language of the Constitution, though procedural in nature, it is still more than substantive. If it were House and Senate procedural rules in question the SCOTUS would refuse to accept the case. Seeing as it is a violation of the plain and very clear language of the Constitution, or rules of which cannot be changed by the House and Senate, the complaint holds both substance and merit.

 

[Toronado3800]

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 of the United States Constitution States 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 president’s desk for signing. Don’t believe me? See the bill’s 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 taxes! 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



.

Oh good God.

I actually think it is unconstitutional BTW but this is a grasp at a thin straw.

Now if only we didn't start liberally overthrowing other countries w/o declarations of war and bailing out S&L's for the general welfare the court might side with my opinion. And my goodness, the pro gun / pro Patriot Act "conservatives" out there. Puke, gimme my guns if I register transactions involving them and quit listening to my phone calls.

BUT, some fellas who pretended to be conservative got into power and did those things then appointed like minded judges.

 

[dblack]

Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constituion: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”

It doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite 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!

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

Wrong again. Roberts didn't have the authority to rule on Article 1 Section 7 grounds because those were not the grounds the individual mandate was challenged or defended on. Furthermore, when it is the plain language of the Constitution, though procedural in nature, it is still more than substantive. If it were House and Senate procedural rules in question the SCOTUS would refuse to accept the case. Seeing as it is a violation of the plain and very clear language of the Constitution, or rules of which cannot be changed by the House and Senate, the complaint holds both substance and merit.

You're confusing clear and unambiguous with substantive. It's not substantive in the sense that it doesn't protect us from overreaching government in a meaningful way. It's just a "gotcha" that, regardless of how clear-cut it is, amounts to a technicality. It think you're kidding yourself if you think this will stick when the previous case didn't.

That said, I'd love to see the case turn out as you're hoping. And I really have no fucking idea what drives Roberts. Maybe he is that capricious.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So has the court agreed to hear this or are we just in the filing stages?

 

[Publius1787]

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

Wrong again. Roberts didn't have the authority to rule on Article 1 Section 7 grounds because those were not the grounds the individual mandate was challenged or defended on. Furthermore, when it is the plain language of the Constitution, though procedural in nature, it is still more than substantive. If it were House and Senate procedural rules in question the SCOTUS would refuse to accept the case. Seeing as it is a violation of the plain and very clear language of the Constitution, or rules of which cannot be changed by the House and Senate, the complaint holds both substance and merit.

You're confusing clear and unambiguous with substantive. It's not substantive in the sense that it doesn't protect us from overreaching government in a meaningful way. It's just a "gotcha" that, regardless of how clear-cut it is, amounts to a technicality. It think you're kidding yourself if you think this will stick when the previous case didn't.

But, I'd love for it to go as you suggest. And I really have no fucking idea what drives Roberts. Maybe he is that capricious.

To assess that it is a "gotcha" procedural tactic and does not prevent the overreach of government in a meaningful way is to ignore the reason why our founders wanted all revenue raising bills to originate in the House in the first place. I need not explain this further to you as from what I can see you are a very astute person.

 

[Publius1787]

So has the court agreed to hear this or are we just in the filing stages?

We are just in the initial filing stages. If they reject it, however, it would need to be appealed to a higher court until they deem that the case has merit. It will then start over again in the lower courts. It's not hard to prove the merits of this case. It's in plain Constitutional english.

 

[The Professor]

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 doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite 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!

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

I disagree.

This is more than a mere procedural error, it is a direct and obvious violation of the Constitution. In interpreting legal documents, every word must be considered. The law does not say the bill NUMBER must originate in the House; that would be stupid. It says the BILL must originate in the House and the word “bill” has a meaning, too. A bill is generally defined as “A draft of a proposed law presented for approval to a legislative body.” Clearly the bill is the actual language of the proposed law and not the insignificant number of that law. Also, in interpreting legal documents, the intent of the language must be considered whenever there is a dispute. It seems rather obvious to me that the intent of having the bill itself originate in the House was to allow actual deliberations on that bill before passing it on to the Senate. I cannot think of any other purpose and if you can't either I suggest that is in fact the purpose. Elimination of both the title and content of the original bill and substituting that for an entirely new piece of legislation prevents the house from performing its statutory duties, and is therefore unconstitutional.

What the Senate did on this bill is one of the most despicable, dishonorable things I have heard of in my entire lifetime. It's so fucking dishonest, it's almost funny. There is no doubt that if the SCOTUS should rule against Obamacare, but the question is: will they? Frankly, after having reviewed hundreds of SCOTUS decisions, I don't have a clue. They fucked up the Commerce Clause beyond belief, and I don't trust them on this one.

PS: Even if you prefer to consider this as a "procedural technicality" is is still unconstitutional. Some procedures, such as this one, are required by the Constitution, and that makes them an issue. You may consider Miranda warnings to be more procedural than substantive, but the consequences of not following the procedure may allow a guilty man to go free. Beside, most people define substantive as being something which is essential; something involving matters of major or practical importance, and Constitutionally mandated legal procedure are substantive by definition.

Edited to add: I totally agree with what you said about Roberts, and I am afraid he will do the same damn thing again.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[Publius1787]

Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constituion: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”

It doesen't get any more substantive than that! Indeed, before it was a penalty and the word "tax" was absent from the bill. Now that it is a tax, dispite 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!

No, it's not substantive. It's a procedural technicality. Maybe laws ought to be struck down on any an all such violations. But given that PPACA was such an obvious violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and given that Roberts was willing to perform all manner of embarrassing rationalization to accommodate it, it seems a stretch to think he wouldn't skip right by this hurdle even more easily.

I disagree.

This is more than a mere procedural error, it is a direct and obvious violation of the Constitution. In interpreting legal documents, every word must be considered. The law does not say the bill NUMBER must originate in the House; that would be stupid. It says the BILL must originate in the House and the word “bill” has a meaning, too. A bill is generally defined as “A draft of a proposed law presented for approval to a legislative body.” Clearly the bill is the actual language of the proposed law and not the insignificant number of that law. Also, in interpreting legal documents, the intent of the language must be considered whenever there is a dispute. It seems rather obvious to me that the intent of having the bill itself originate in the House was to allow actual deliberations on that bill before passing it on to the Senate. I cannot think of any other purpose and if you can't either I suggest that is in fact the purpose. Elimination of both the title and content of the original bill and substituting that for an entirely new piece of legislation prevents the house from performing its statutory duties, and is therefore unconstitutional.

What the Senate did on this bill is one of the most despicable, dishonorable things I have heard of in my entire lifetime. It's so fucking dishonest, it's almost funny. There is no doubt that if the SCOTUS should rule against Obamacare, but the question is: will they? Frankly, after having reviewed hundreds of SCOTUS decisions, I don't have a clue. They fucked up the Commerce Clause beyond belief, and I don't trust them on this one.

PS: Even if you prefer to consider this as a "procedural technicality" is is still unconstitutional. Some procedures, such as this one, are required by the Constitution, and that makes them an issue. You may consider Miranda warnings to be more procedural than substantive, but the consequences of not following the procedure may allow a guilty man to go free. Beside, most people define substantive as being something which is essential; something involving matters of major or practical importance, and Constitutionally mandated legal procedure are substantive by definition.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate can gut a bill, deem it passed by the House of Representatives (in certain circumstances), and send it to the president’s desk. For the most part SCOTUS stays out of congressional procedure altogether. They did not, however, rule that a bill can go from raising zero revenue in the House to a bill raising a trillion dollars in the Senate without first being sent back to the House. In fact, the previous ruling with respect to "deem and pass" was in regards to two bills that raised nothing in the form of taxation. And they cannot ignore this procedure as it is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution as opposed to some congressional rule made up every 2-4 years. There is a reason why all bills of increased taxation must originate in the House and it is that very reason why the challenge holds substance.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

no kidding, now I wish they would itemize all the taxes and fees it takes to hire someone......the govt fucks alot of working people over with that crap

 

[buckeye45_73]

We know it's not going to cover the people they say it will..democrats never have a solution, because if they did, they'd be out of business.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Honestly, I think Roberts traded his vote on Obama-care for a vote on another case.

 

[Claudette]

I wish the SCOTUS had kicked the whole thing to the curb where it belongs.

I can't see how you can force anyone to buy any commercial product.

The ACA is going to be anything but affordable and the only winners are those who didn't have HC we taxpayers will be paying for out HC and theirs as well.

I hope the SC revisits this POS bill. Its going to cost us billions.

 

[billyerock1991]

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 president’s desk for signing. Don’t believe me? See the bill’s 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



.

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA now I heard everything nice try but no banana for you