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

[Sallow]

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.

What?

Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.

Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.

 

[billyerock1991]

introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
Major amendments
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011
talk about reaching for the stars

 

[Sallow]

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.

Well no.

Democrats did have a solution. Single Payer.

This was the Republican Solution. It was created by the Heritage Foundation and used by Bob Dole to float an alternative to HillaryCare. It then was implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts to keep from losing Federal Funding.

Never let facts and history get in the way of your posts, eh?

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

What?

Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.

Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.

they're always cherry picking .... its was in the house first
introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
Major amendments
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011

 

[dblack]

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.

Well no.

Democrats did have a solution. Single Payer.

'Having' a solution doesn't count unless you actually propose it and vote for it. THEY DIDN'T.

This was the Republican Solution.

Republican's didn't pass it. Democrats did. In the end, your Democrats preferred the 'Republican' solution more. Is it that hard to admit you got duped?

Never let facts and history get in the way of your posts, eh?

 

[dblack]

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.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying the case is without merit, and I certainly hope the effort to strike down or repeal PPACA succeeds. But it does have less merit, and makes a less substantial claim, than the original SC case. If Roberts defended the administration's ambitions the first time, I have a hard time imagining how he'll reverse course on these grounds. It'd be like letting the surviving Boston bomber go free because he wasn't mirandized. It seems very unlikely to me.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

We are just in the initial filing stages.

(yawn)

Get back to us when it's granted cert by the Supremes.....

 

[Redfish]

Congress and unions want to be exempt from obamacare-------------need anything more be said?

 

[bripat9643]

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

True. but perhaps this time the approbation he received for his previous error will cause him to make a better decision. He did not shower himself with glory with his previous decision, and he knows it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Excellent post. I can't find any errors in your logic. I don't see how Justice Roberts can find a way to weasel around the argument.

 

[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.

What?

Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.

Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.

Whatever man, the Constitution is perfectly black and white on this issue. If Obamacare stands after this challenge then the Constitution means nothing at all. In any case, the tax question had to be settled before the Article 1 question could be addressed.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

What?

Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.

Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.

they're always cherry picking .... its was in the house first
introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
Major amendments
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011

Wrong again. It was passed by the House as a bill raising absolutely zero revenue. It was then gutted and replaced by the Senate and it was there, and only there, a revenue raising bill originated. The Amendments were agreed to by the House but it did not originate in the House. Likewise, it was never sent back to the Senate. If this isn’t in direct violation of Article 1 Section 7 then the Constitution means whatever we think it means. A law that means anything we want is no law at all.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010; 111th Congress H.R. 3590) - GovTrack.us

House Vote on Passage
Oct 08, 2009 12:15 p.m.
Passed 416/0
Senate Vote on Passage
Dec 24, 2009 7:05 a.m.
Bill Passed 60/39
House Vote on Passage
Mar 21, 2010 10:49 p.m.
Passed 219/212

 

[Publius1787]

Hotze v. Obamacare | Home

 

[g5000]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Don't believe me? Just try to get even a dyed-in-the-wool post modern conservative to go along with eliminating the tax penalty for not buying a house. They won't do it. They will, in fact, come after you with fangs and claws if you even try.


So it is way, way, WAY too late for anyone to be complaining about a new tax penalty for not buying health insurance. You blew it.

 

[dblack]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Yep. We got suckered into corporatism via discriminatory taxation. We won't get back to equal protection until we realize this and prohibit such back door legislation on principle. That means abolishing tax "incentives" wholesale and giving up on using the tax code to control people.

 

[g5000]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Yep. We got suckered into corporatism via discriminatory taxation. We won't get back to equal protection until we realize this and prohibit such back door legislation on principle. That means abolishing tax "incentives" wholesale and giving up on using the tax code to control people.

Amen, brother.

 

[Publius1787]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Don't believe me? Just try to get even a dyed-in-the-wool post modern conservative to go along with eliminating the tax penalty for not buying a house. They won't do it. They will, in fact, come after you with fangs and claws if you even try.


So it is way, way, WAY too late for anyone to be complaining about a new tax penalty for not buying health insurance. You blew it.

When people resort to justifying a wrong with what they themselves consider to be wrong then you know they have no argument.

 

[dblack]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Don't believe me? Just try to get even a dyed-in-the-wool post modern conservative to go along with eliminating the tax penalty for not buying a house. They won't do it. They will, in fact, come after you with fangs and claws if you even try.


So it is way, way, WAY too late for anyone to be complaining about a new tax penalty for not buying health insurance. You blew it.

When people resort to justifying a wrong with what they themselves consider to be wrong then you know they have no argument.

I didn't get the impression g5000 was 'justifying' anything, but simply noting a rather glaring inconsistency in much of the opposition to the individual mandate. Most people griping about the mandate have no problem with similar policies when they perceive them to be beneficial.

I suspect this is really what scared Roberts away from ruling it unconstitutional. If he'd struck down the mandate on the grounds that the state can't compel behavior via tax penalties, a huge portion of the state's coercive power would be in jeopardy. Indeed, that was my greatest hope, though it didn't surprise me to see him shy away from such a profound correction in the direction of our government.

 

[Publius1787]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Don't believe me? Just try to get even a dyed-in-the-wool post modern conservative to go along with eliminating the tax penalty for not buying a house. They won't do it. They will, in fact, come after you with fangs and claws if you even try.


So it is way, way, WAY too late for anyone to be complaining about a new tax penalty for not buying health insurance. You blew it.

When people resort to justifying a wrong with what they themselves consider to be wrong then you know they have no argument.

I didn't get the impression g5000 was 'justifying' anything, but simply noting a rather glaring inconsistency in much of the opposition to the individual mandate. Most people griping about the mandate have no problem with similar policies when they perceive them to be beneficial.

I suspect this is really what scared Roberts away from ruling it unconstitutional. If he'd struck down the mandate on the grounds that the state can't compel behavior via tax penalties, a huge portion of the state's coercive power would be in jeopardy. Indeed, that was my greatest hope, though it didn't surprise me to see him shy away from such a profound correction in the direction of our government.

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."

 

[Gardener]

ACA is the lsaw of thre land/.

Republicans need to let this omne go.

maybe one day they will pass a budget