New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    Under the constitution, all new tax law must originate in the house.

    To prevent the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act in Texas, Dr. Steve Hotze, a Houston physician announced he is suing the federal government, claiming the ACA violates federal tax law as written.

    The suit claims that ObamaCare radically hikes small-business costs, impoverishes states and violates the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.

    The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Houston, Texas. The case is Hotze v. Sebelius, 4:13-cv-1318, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

    Although the Supreme Court ruled the bill to be Constitutional, the majority opinion offered new hope for the majority of Americans who want it repealed. Some background:

    In June of 2012 The Supreme Court upheld most of the bill commonly known as “ObamaCare” as being Constitutional, but Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion went out of his way to say that the program was in fact a tax and not the Supreme Court’s business.

    Everyone across the spectrum reacted emotionally to the ruling. Liberals cheering their unlikely Supreme Court hero, and frustrated conservatives, who thought ObamaCare was on the way out derided the Justice -- some even labeling Roberts a “traitor,” and a “coward.”

    But the opinion has opened the door to another Constitutional challenge, which will also highlight the way the bill was rammed through Congress. At the time, Nancy Pelosi (not that she read it) was not treating it like a tax and since ObamaCare did not originate in the House. Justice Roberts defining the bill as a tax meant he was throwing it back into the water for a do-over. In a nutshell, to correctly challenge the law, it must be challenged as the tax that it now is.

    Was Roberts more concerned with protecting Americans from Big Government interpretations of the Commerce Clause? Was he giving a wink and a nod to the States that they need to be protected from that same ever-growing, and overreaching federal government? In any event, Justice Roberts wrote the Supreme Court ruling, talked a gaggle of liberal justices into signing onto it, and made the whole thing look non-partisan in the process.

    Roberts refused to legislate from the bench. He threw the matter back to the legislature that is responsible for empowering legislation. Roberts knew Obamacare was unconstitutional as a tax, but not as it was brought before the Court at the time. He cleverly set the stage for a successful appeal.

    And it’s here, thanks to Dr. Steve Hotze

    “What we were promised was a new health care policy and change that could be good for all Americans,” Hotze said at the state Capitol, surrounded by Republican legislators. “Really, all it’s turned out to offer us is higher premiums, higher taxes and a government that will allow its bureaucrats to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.”

    His lawsuit offers two constitutional challenges: First, the Affordable Care Act is in clear violation of the rule requiring tax-bills to originate in the House. The original bill if you can believe it, was a tax credit bill for veterans. Secondly, ObamaCare is in violation of the Fifth Amendment by compelling the purchase of health coverage.

    It is forcing individuals and businesses to purchase a consumer product -- in this case, health insurance.

    Hotze’s lawsuit claims that by forcing Americans to buy private insurance, Obamacare violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which holds that private property can only be taken for a “public use” and with just compensation for the property owner.

    The suit also claims that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because revenue-raising laws and taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. In the 5-4 decision upholding Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the law’s penalty on the uninsured is a tax.

    "It is imperative that Texas challenge this unwarranted federal overreach and ensure that Texans maintain the most innovative and economically viable health care system in the country," he wrote in a statement.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/08/a-new-legal-challenge-to-obamacare

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.


    And when this challenge fails, the GOP will try another challenge.  Nothing new here.

    It's just like Social Security.  Well into the 1960s, Republicans complained they were always running against Social Security, which the party vehemently opposed in the 1930s.  The biggest part of the GOPs desparate opposition to ACA is that they know it will work and be enormously popular, so they will be running against it for decades as the party that opposed health care for all.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to UserName99's comment:


    And when this challenge fails, the GOP will try another challenge.  Nothing new here.

    It's just like Social Security.  Well into the 1960s, Republicans complained they were always running against Social Security, which the party vehemently opposed in the 1930s.  The biggest part of the GOPs desparate opposition to ACA is that they know it will work and be enormously popular, so they will be running against it for decades as the party that opposed health care for all.



    This is a doctor not the rnc.

    Social security in it's current form by the way is a debacle; it was never intended to be a permanent fix.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    Regardless of one's feelings on ACA, this particular challenge a great chance of succeeding.  ACA was defended via powers of taxtion yielded by Congress and upheld for that very reason as cited by Roberts in the majority opinion...however ACA originated in the Senate and it was never blue-slipped, which is the normal maneaver used to work around origination clause issues.  Since revenue is raised in ACA it's required to originate in the HoR.  It'll be an interesting challenge to follow

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to sshore123's comment:

    Regardless of one's feelings on ACA, this particular challenge a great chance of succeeding.  ACA was defended via powers of taxtion yielded by Congress and upheld for that very reason as cited by Roberts in the majority opinion...however ACA originated in the Senate and it was never blue-slipped, which is the normal maneaver used to work around origination clause issues.  Since revenue is raised in ACA it's required to originate in the HoR.  It'll be an interesting challenge to follow




    Thats the way I read it and it looks pretty cut and dry but, I am not an expert in constitutional law by any means!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    Despite all the snarky replies from  the progressives, I am largely in agreement with them:

    This goes nowhere, though not for the snarky reasons mentioned or alluded to.

    The ACA has been deemed constitutional, and the House Republicans, despite all the complaints, votes, rhetoric, can't wait to stuff their own pork into this effort.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     Don't these people have an internet connection?

    I guess they are determined to prove Einstein's theory of insanity true.

    Obamacare originated in the House as H.R. 3590, and it was originally called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.”

    Yes, it was amended, and amended heavily, in the Senate, but the Constitution says of revenue bills, “the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

     

    The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on its bill (the Affordable Health Care for America Act); it instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[199] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[200] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[201] The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

     

    Q.E.D.



    All very true - the point of the challenge is that HR 3590 was not a revenue raising billing but an edit to the tax code where no new monies would be collected by the government.  When the Senate amended the bill with ACA it introduced the revenue component, which is the basis of the origination challenge.  Without the Senate amending HR 3590 no revenues were introduced.  When this practice has been made (frequently) in the past the Senate is replacing/amending one revenue bill with another.  As long as the original HR resolution mentioned revenue the Senate could amend to completely re-write and it would pass the origination test.  That wasn't the case with HR 3590.

    It appears that this back door approach could have been part of the rationale with Roberts siding and writing the majority opinion.  Regardless of what you may think of him or his views, he's a very bright legal scholar.  Ruling against the mandate only impacted certain parts of the overall law.  Granted it was a crucial component, but it would have left a large piece of ACA on the books.  By declaring it constitiutional as a tax imposed within the powers of Congress, he may have left room to attack ACA in this manner and to try have it declared invalid based on what amounts to be a legal technicality. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]This is a doctor not the rnc.

     


    No, one person cannot be the whole rnc.

     

    Close enough, though.

     

     

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

     

    He's already a Houston physician, Republican campaign donor, radio talk show host and litigant in a federal lawsuit against the roll-out of "Obamacare." Now Dr. Steve Hotze may be adding aspiring pop star to that list. 

     

    Hotze, an ally of top state leaders who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns, has cut two songs about his opposition to federal health reform.

    The songs — "God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare" and "Texans Stand Against Obamacare" — are recorded in a digitized, techno style and feature refrains like "We will defeat Obama and the socialists" and "Texas should be free again, it should be an independent nation."


    The musical release follows Hotze's visit to the state Capitol last week to announce his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health reform. Hotze was flanked by Republican leaders at the announcement; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's office booked the room for the event.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/15/republican-donor-releases-songs-opposing-obamacare/

    Texas's Internationale. Cute.

     


    And how much of a "doctor" is he?

    Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well that is all fine and dandy but does he have a legal argument or not? Does he have standing?

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]This is a doctor not the rnc.

     

     


    No, one person cannot be the whole rnc.

     

    Close enough, though.

     

     

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

     

    He's already a Houston physician, Republican campaign donor, radio talk show host and litigant in a federal lawsuit against the roll-out of "Obamacare." Now Dr. Steve Hotze may be adding aspiring pop star to that list. 

     

    Hotze, an ally of top state leaders who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns, has cut two songs about his opposition to federal health reform.

    The songs — "God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare" and "Texans Stand Against Obamacare" — are recorded in a digitized, techno style and feature refrains like "We will defeat Obama and the socialists" and "Texas should be free again, it should be an independent nation."


    The musical release follows Hotze's visit to the state Capitol last week to announce his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health reform. Hotze was flanked by Republican leaders at the announcement; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's office booked the room for the event.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/15/republican-donor-releases-songs-opposing-obamacare/

    Texas's Internationale. Cute.

     


    And how much of a "doctor" is he?

    Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well that is all fine and dandy but does he have a legal argument or not? Does he have standing?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    All the left has is personal attacks.  Not much brain power there.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    Let's see what Clarence Darrow has to say if he dares to show up. 

    Just giving him a little prod.

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    This is a doctor not the rnc.

     

     

     

     


    No, one person cannot be the whole rnc.

     

    Close enough, though.

     

     

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

     

    He's already a Houston physician, Republican campaign donor, radio talk show host and litigant in a federal lawsuit against the roll-out of "Obamacare." Now Dr. Steve Hotze may be adding aspiring pop star to that list. 

     

    Hotze, an ally of top state leaders who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns, has cut two songs about his opposition to federal health reform.

    The songs — "God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare" and "Texans Stand Against Obamacare" — are recorded in a digitized, techno style and feature refrains like "We will defeat Obama and the socialists" and "Texas should be free again, it should be an independent nation."


    The musical release follows Hotze's visit to the state Capitol last week to announce his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health reform. Hotze was flanked by Republican leaders at the announcement; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's office booked the room for the event.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/15/republican-donor-releases-songs-opposing-obamacare/

    Texas's Internationale. Cute.

     


    And how much of a "doctor" is he?

    Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well that is all fine and dandy but does he have a legal argument or not? Does he have standing?

     

     

     

     

     

     



    All the left has is personal attacks.  Not much brain power there.

     

     

     

    I would be interested to see what Clarence Darrow's real legal opinion is untainted by political ideology, if that is possible.


     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    Let's see what Clarence Darrow has to say if he dares to show up. 

    Just giving him a little prod.

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    This is a doctor not the rnc.

     

     

     

     


    No, one person cannot be the whole rnc.

     

    Close enough, though.

     

     

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

     

    He's already a Houston physician, Republican campaign donor, radio talk show host and litigant in a federal lawsuit against the roll-out of "Obamacare." Now Dr. Steve Hotze may be adding aspiring pop star to that list. 

     

    Hotze, an ally of top state leaders who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns, has cut two songs about his opposition to federal health reform.

    The songs — "God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare" and "Texans Stand Against Obamacare" — are recorded in a digitized, techno style and feature refrains like "We will defeat Obama and the socialists" and "Texas should be free again, it should be an independent nation."


    The musical release follows Hotze's visit to the state Capitol last week to announce his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health reform. Hotze was flanked by Republican leaders at the announcement; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's office booked the room for the event.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/15/republican-donor-releases-songs-opposing-obamacare/

    Texas's Internationale. Cute.

     


    And how much of a "doctor" is he?

    Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well that is all fine and dandy but does he have a legal argument or not? Does he have standing?

     

     

     

     

     

     



    All the left has is personal attacks.  Not much brain power there.

     

     

     

    I would be interested to see what Clarence Darrow's real legal opinion is untainted by political ideology, if that is possible.


     



    What does clarence darrow have to do with Obamacare constitutionality?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to sshore123's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     Don't these people have an internet connection?

    I guess they are determined to prove Einstein's theory of insanity true.

    Obamacare originated in the House as H.R. 3590, and it was originally called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.”

    Yes, it was amended, and amended heavily, in the Senate, but the Constitution says of revenue bills, “the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

     

    The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on its bill (the Affordable Health Care for America Act); it instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[199] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[200] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[201] The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

     

    Q.E.D.

     

     



    All very true - the point of the challenge is that HR 3590 was not a revenue raising billing but an edit to the tax code where no new monies would be collected by the government.  When the Senate amended the bill with ACA it introduced the revenue component, which is the basis of the origination challenge.  Without the Senate amending HR 3590 no revenues were introduced.  When this practice has been made (frequently) in the past the Senate is replacing/amending one revenue bill with another.  As long as the original HR resolution mentioned revenue the Senate could amend to completely re-write and it would pass the origination test.  That wasn't the case with HR 3590.

     

     

    It appears that this back door approach could have been part of the rationale with Roberts siding and writing the majority opinion.  Regardless of what you may think of him or his views, he's a very bright legal scholar.  Ruling against the mandate only impacted certain parts of the overall law.  Granted it was a crucial component, but it would have left a large piece of ACA on the books.  By declaring it constitiutional as a tax imposed within the powers of Congress, he may have left room to attack ACA in this manner and to try have it declared invalid based on what amounts to be a legal technicality. 

     

     

     




     

    You are missing the forest for the trees.

    The Constitution stipulates that all revenue raising bills must originate in the HoR.

    It also grants the Senate the ability to amend any bill passed by the HoR. It says nothing about which bills they can amend or that the original intent of the HoR passed bill must relate to revenue or even remain intact.

    That means, legally, they could take any bill passed by the HoR, even one that didn't begin as a revenue bill, and amend the heck out of it so that now it is a revenue bill.

    It then goes back to HoR for a vote. If it passes, it becomes law with the PotUS signature.

     

    TARP

    In order to get around the Constitution, the leaders turned to the time-honored stratagem of finding a live but dormant House bill — Kennedy’s mental-health parity bill — to use as a shell.

    “They take out the entire text” of Kennedy’s old bill, “and then, by amendment, they substitute the other bill,” said Don Ritchie, an assistant Senate historian. Two bills, in this instance: the emergency rescue bill and the tax provisions and the final version of Kennedy’s mental-health parity wrapped inside.

    And that is how Kennedy of Rhode Island became the original lead sponsor — in name only — of one of the most hard-fought financial bills in congressional history.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20081003142241/http://www.projo.com/news/content/patrick_kennedy_bill_10-02-08_PEBPTH3_v12.19778fa.html



    Not entirely - based upon the prevailing precedents the original bill from the House needed to a revenue bill.  Based upon precedents the Senate couldn't take a bill which had no mention of revenue and insert a tax and pass the an origination test.  The link below is an interesting read on the intreperation of the clause.

    What will be interesting though is Steven's own opinion that the court would be hesistant to overturn a law on origination grounds if passed by both chambers and signed but the president.  The above was part of his concurring opinion in US v Munoz-Flores.

    What's really interesting to me is whether the courts would throw ACA out on what amounts to a legal technicality - something I think most people bemoan when it occurs verdict or ruling. 

    http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1410

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:



    In my TARP example, the Kennedy bill, dealing with mental health parity, had absolutely nothing, nada, zip to do with revenue. 

    And your link has absolutely nothing to do with the "time-honored stratagem of finding a live but dormant House bill" and ammending the heck out of it before sending it back to the HoR.

    Just because you don't like a policy or procedure doesn't make it un-Constitutional.

    As the Senate historian said, it's a "time-honored strategem" so don't expect some new interpretation of the practice just because you don't like the law, a law already deemed Constitutional.

     



    We'll find out soon enough.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    Let's see what Clarence Darrow has to say if he dares to show up. 

    Just giving him a little prod.

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    This is a doctor not the rnc.

     

     

     

     


    No, one person cannot be the whole rnc.

     

    Close enough, though.

     

     

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

    Surrounded by several Texas legislators, Dr. Steve Hotze announces his lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act on May 7, 2013.

     

    He's already a Houston physician, Republican campaign donor, radio talk show host and litigant in a federal lawsuit against the roll-out of "Obamacare." Now Dr. Steve Hotze may be adding aspiring pop star to that list. 

     

    Hotze, an ally of top state leaders who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaigns, has cut two songs about his opposition to federal health reform.

    The songs — "God Fearing Texans Stop Obamacare" and "Texans Stand Against Obamacare" — are recorded in a digitized, techno style and feature refrains like "We will defeat Obama and the socialists" and "Texas should be free again, it should be an independent nation."


    The musical release follows Hotze's visit to the state Capitol last week to announce his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health reform. Hotze was flanked by Republican leaders at the announcement; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's office booked the room for the event.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/15/republican-donor-releases-songs-opposing-obamacare/

    Texas's Internationale. Cute.

     


    And how much of a "doctor" is he?

    Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well that is all fine and dandy but does he have a legal argument or not? Does he have standing?

     

     

     

     

     

     



    All the left has is personal attacks.  Not much brain power there.

     

     

     

    I would be interested to see what Clarence Darrow's real legal opinion is untainted by political ideology, if that is possible.


     

     



    What does clarence darrow have to do with Obamacare constitutionality?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Bad joke. I was referring to WDYWN

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to sshore123's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to sshore123's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     Don't these people have an internet connection?

    I guess they are determined to prove Einstein's theory of insanity true.

    Obamacare originated in the House as H.R. 3590, and it was originally called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.”

    Yes, it was amended, and amended heavily, in the Senate, but the Constitution says of revenue bills, “the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

     

    The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on its bill (the Affordable Health Care for America Act); it instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[199] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[200] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[201] The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

     

    Q.E.D.

     

     



    All very true - the point of the challenge is that HR 3590 was not a revenue raising billing but an edit to the tax code where no new monies would be collected by the government.  When the Senate amended the bill with ACA it introduced the revenue component, which is the basis of the origination challenge.  Without the Senate amending HR 3590 no revenues were introduced.  When this practice has been made (frequently) in the past the Senate is replacing/amending one revenue bill with another.  As long as the original HR resolution mentioned revenue the Senate could amend to completely re-write and it would pass the origination test.  That wasn't the case with HR 3590.

     

     

    It appears that this back door approach could have been part of the rationale with Roberts siding and writing the majority opinion.  Regardless of what you may think of him or his views, he's a very bright legal scholar.  Ruling against the mandate only impacted certain parts of the overall law.  Granted it was a crucial component, but it would have left a large piece of ACA on the books.  By declaring it constitiutional as a tax imposed within the powers of Congress, he may have left room to attack ACA in this manner and to try have it declared invalid based on what amounts to be a legal technicality. 

     

     

     




     

    You are missing the forest for the trees.

    The Constitution stipulates that all revenue raising bills must originate in the HoR.

    It also grants the Senate the ability to amend any bill passed by the HoR. It says nothing about which bills they can amend or that the original intent of the HoR passed bill must relate to revenue or even remain intact.

    That means, legally, they could take any bill passed by the HoR, even one that didn't begin as a revenue bill, and amend the heck out of it so that now it is a revenue bill.

    It then goes back to HoR for a vote. If it passes, it becomes law with the PotUS signature.

     

    TARP

    In order to get around the Constitution, the leaders turned to the time-honored stratagem of finding a live but dormant House bill — Kennedy’s mental-health parity bill — to use as a shell.

    “They take out the entire text” of Kennedy’s old bill, “and then, by amendment, they substitute the other bill,” said Don Ritchie, an assistant Senate historian. Two bills, in this instance: the emergency rescue bill and the tax provisions and the final version of Kennedy’s mental-health parity wrapped inside.

    And that is how Kennedy of Rhode Island became the original lead sponsor — in name only — of one of the most hard-fought financial bills in congressional history.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20081003142241/http://www.projo.com/news/content/patrick_kennedy_bill_10-02-08_PEBPTH3_v12.19778fa.html

     

     



    Not entirely - based upon the prevailing precedents the original bill from the House needed to a revenue bill.  Based upon precedents the Senate couldn't take a bill which had no mention of revenue and insert a tax and pass the an origination test.  The link below is an interesting read on the intreperation of the clause.

     

     

    What will be interesting though is Steven's own opinion that the court would be hesistant to overturn a law on origination grounds if passed by both chambers and signed but the president.  The above was part of his concurring opinion in US v Munoz-Flores.

    What's really interesting to me is whether the courts would throw ACA out on what amounts to a legal technicality - something I think most people bemoan when it occurs verdict or ruling. 

    http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1410

     

     

     




    You are absolutely wrong.

     

     

    In my TARP example, the Kennedy bill, dealing with mental health parity, had absolutely nothing, nada, zip to do with revenue whereas the HR3590 is, without a doubt, a revenue bill. So even if you wish to apply that standard then ACA passes the test.

    It should also be noted that federal courts have generally declined to equate the
    phrase “raising revenue” with “increasing revenue.”...  Instead, contemporary courts have adopted the construction given by Congress, that is, relating to, or providing for, revenue.

    CRS-10

    Just because you don't like a policy or procedure doesn't make it un-Constitutional.

    As the Senate historian said, it's a "time-honored strategem" so don't expect some new interpretation of the practice just because you don't like the law, a law already deemed Constitutional.

     



    Did I say I had trouble with the legislation or that I think it's unconstitutional, no I said I would have issue overturning something voted on by both chambers and signed by the president on a legal technicality.  If the mandate had been considered unconstitutional than so be it, however it was upheld via powes of taxation.  My point is that it's an interesting case as it appears there may be an origination issue.  This was my point - that Roberts, in upholding the mandate via taxation powers, left the backdoor unlocked for this type of challenge since the original house resolution contained no language regarding tax imposition.

    Your TARP example is flawed for a couple of reasons, first being that TARP didn't call for additonal revenues to be derived from taxation and secondly the original Kennedy mental health bill did include tax language:

    SEC. 9834. ENFORCEMENT.

    `For the imposition of tax on any failure of a group health plan to meet the requirements of this chapter, see section 4980D.'.

    So the Senate would have had coverage if TARP generated tax related revenues.  Seems petty and splitting hairs but that's the point of the discussion.  In looking at the original bill, coupled with the current interperations of origination and what "revenue" is defined as he MAY have a question that the courts need to address, but WDYWN has a point whether he has standing to bring the suit.

     Again I'm not arguing that ACA should be tossed out because of this, I'd say the opposite really.   It'll be an interesting and potentially ugly case if it does move up the the SC to have such a major piece of legislation tossed basically because an "i" wasn't dotted and a "t" not crossed in the legislative process.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Snotty jabs and tears shed on the doctor's behalf aside......

     

     

     

    Standing is not something I have to deal with. I suspect he has standing if he can make out a position that he is injured by the legislation.

    As for constitutionality, it's dead in the water if it is true that the senate is free to amend anything originating in the house and tack on revenue generating provisions.

    This is very likely just some hot air from an "alternative medicine pratictioner" - doctor in license only - who is trying to become a GOP pop star darling....

     



    Yah, tears shed for the doctor versus let's cut the BS and get to the point instead of shooting the messenger.

    Could it be that no one here and most elsewhere knows where the tax portion of ACA originated? 

    It is a 3000 page bill that no one read until after it passed and STILL we are finding out how there are "snags" "loopholes" etc.

    How can you dismiss the possibility that this kook doctor has a case? Oh, because you want it to be so? 

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Snotty jabs and tears shed on the doctor's behalf aside......

     

     

     

    Standing is not something I have to deal with. I suspect he has standing if he can make out a position that he is injured by the legislation.

    As for constitutionality, it's dead in the water if it is true that the senate is free to amend anything originating in the house and tack on revenue generating provisions.

    This is very likely just some hot air from an "alternative medicine pratictioner" - doctor in license only - who is trying to become a GOP pop star darling....

     



    As much as I think this will come to nothing, doesn't everyone in the country have standing?  we all are injured by this legislation.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: New challenge to the ACA as unconstitutional.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    As for constitutionality, it's dead in the water if it is true that the senate is free to amend anything originating in the house and tack on revenue generating provisions. 



    It reads the house is authorized by the people to increase revenue however, the senate can amend a tax bill.

    It wasn't a "tax bill" until the senate added the amendment of the IRS setting fines for those who do not buy health insurance. Therefore, his argument is that the senate took a (non-revenue) bill and "created a tax bill" which he claims is unconstitutional.

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share