It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare Invalid: Tax Bills Must Originate in House of Representatives, Not the Senate

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase – not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.


www.thedailysheeple.com...

So for those calling this a "Tax" now, it is now unconstitutional after being drafted in the senate first. Supreme court ruled it relies on a tax for implementation, making it now a tax. It is now null and void!
edit on 3-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
LOL wow that does make sense, when using common sense lol. Im sure some one will have a legal reason on why your wrong, but I totally agree. Good find. A tax must originate from the House.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Guarnere09 because: add



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I don't know where your sources are getting their info, but ...

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act



Legislative history

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


Oh, and the actual Constitutional clause:



All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


Which is exactly what happened.


edit on 7/3/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know where your sources are getting their info, but ...

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act



Legislative history

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




edit on 7/3/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all but one Republican voting against.[13] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

from your own sorce!

"Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" has nothing to do with this



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


hmmmm..... maybe so,,,, Ya Originated in the Senate FAIL.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Guarnere09 because:



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


It is the SCOTUS' power to perform judicial review and determine the constitutionality of laws so why was ROberts silent about this if it is a valid argument? Does another suit need to be brought. Or is there no merit?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It's right here.



The most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and to instead pass the Senate's bill, and then pass amendments to it with a different bill allowing the Senate to pass the amendments via the reconciliation process.[169][172]


The house bill was shelved. And the senate bill was taken up.
With reconciliation from the house.

The current bill passed into law does not originate from the house.
It was reconciled by the house.

Article 1 Section 7 says.


All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


linky

Now I don't know if the reconciliation process will cover the bill being law. Some may wrangle it in that direction.
However this does bring up a great challenge point in the courts. And this will probably be in front of the supreme court again soon.
And this time the law is looks clear. But you know lawyers.

Btw I'm not a constitutional scholar but I did stay in a holiday inn express.

edit on 3-7-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Article 1 of the United States Constitution
8 Section 7: Bills
8.1 Clause 1: Bills of revenue

en.wikipedia.org...



Clause 1: Bills of revenue
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
This establishes the method for making Acts of Congress. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may originate only in the House of Representatives.


Trouble?????



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Google HR 3590. I think this source times out.

thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3590:/


There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.

1 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH][PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.3590.EH][PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.3590.PCS][PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.3590.AS][PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print - PP)[H.R.3590.PP][PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.3590.EAS][PDF]
7 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.3590.ENR][PDF]


It changed names along the way, but HR3590 originated in the House, the Senate amended it and the House agreed to the amendment.
edit on 7/3/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Google HR 3590. I think this source times out.

thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3590:/


There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.

1 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH][PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.3590.EH][PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.3590.PCS][PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.3590.AS][PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print - PP)[H.R.3590.PP][PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.3590.EAS][PDF]
7 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.3590.ENR][PDF]


It changed names along the way, but HR3590 originated in the house.


what a mess, thats all i have to say.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
see this link

Looks like the next move is after the law is in force someone who is forced to pay the penalty needs to bring a suit and then the constitutionality of the law and whether it is indeed a tax and the question of its origination can be decided.

Looks to me like this first suit was a case of premature adjudication.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think we are going to have a big issue here.


As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[163] 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.[164] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.


The bill started in one form. Then the senate completely revised it.
So while technically it did start out in the house.
The bill was so drastically modified by the senate that it no longer resembled how it was in the house version.

I have a problem with that.
The senate pulled a fast one to get this to be covered by tax law.
I would say that if the original wording did not come from the house... as it should according to the constitution.
Then the bill should be null.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


It requires another suit to be brought by an "interested party" ie some shmuck who pays the penalty/tax W ever TH you want to call it.

Just because Roberts called it a tax does not make it so at this point. That is for another case aimed specifically at this question.

jmo



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think we are going to have a big issue here.


As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[163] 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.[164] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.


The bill started in one form. Then the senate completely revised it.
So while technically it did start out in the house.
The bill was so drastically modified by the senate that it no longer resembled how it was in the house version.

I have a problem with that.
The senate pulled a fast one to get this to be covered by tax law.
I would say that if the original wording did not come from the house... as it should according to the constitution.
Then the bill should be null.


that bill was total revamped and turned into a completely different bill under the same bill number. I wounder if there is case law on this matter?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I hate to burst everyone's bubble here as I am against this law, but how they did it is perfectly legal. I deal with laws all the time in my legislature getting them passed and this was done correctly. When a bill is introduced either in the house or senate it is sent to the other side for review. Once it is sent to the other side they can make any changes they see fit to the original bill. Now, they will send a message back to the originating house and explain to them about the changes they made and ask if the originating house wants to review it and take the matter up again. They usually send that message to a committee that review it and then will make the determination to either bring it back or let it stand, which is what they did here. It is rare for either side to pull a bill back after changes as that will just complicate things, so they usually let it go through.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


You'd think the imbecile Roberts would have known that. Being a Supreme Court Justice and all. Apparently not.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


But in where did the "tax" actually originate? even if it Originates in the Senate, then sent to the House for approval it's invalid.. it has to originate in the House. I'll try and track where it originates.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
I hate to burst everyone's bubble here as I am against this law, but how they did it is perfectly legal. I deal with laws all the time in my legislature getting them passed and this was done correctly. When a bill is introduced either in the house or senate it is sent to the other side for review. Once it is sent to the other side they can make any changes they see fit to the original bill. Now, they will send a message back to the originating house and explain to them about the changes they made and ask if the originating house wants to review it and take the matter up again. They usually send that message to a committee that review it and then will make the determination to either bring it back or let it stand, which is what they did here. It is rare for either side to pull a bill back after changes as that will just complicate things, so they usually let it go through.


State legislatures do not have a US Constitution to deal with. There is case law regarding this if you had read the above posts. This case will be decided by another Supreme Court case. What are you? Someone's secretary?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I just read a pdf file on HR 3590. It has nothing to do with socialized healthcare.


AN ACT:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members
of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employ-
ees, and for other purposes.


This claim is total bull #. The healthcare "amendment" was initiated by the senate. They completely hijacked HR 3590 and renamed it.
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3590:/



AMENDMENT NO. 2786
Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.
H. R. 3590
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members
of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employ-
ees, and for other purposes.
November 19, 2009
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be
proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.
DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)
Viz:
1
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the fol-
2 lowing:
3
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
5 ‘‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’.


Do not say PP&ACA initiated in the House.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You are correct in your statement. If it is a tax law it must originate in the U.S. House. This being one of the powers granted them in the Constitution. The senate has oversight authority, and so does not have the authority to author tax code, only oversee its implementation. The house has the authority to write tax code but not to oversee and enforce its implementation, thus seperating the power and giving checks against its abuse.

All it really means is the house controls the money, the senate makes sure it is spent accordingly.




top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join