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

reply to post by grey580

Originally posted by grey580
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.

But does the law have a problem with it? Apparently not.

The senate pulled a fast one to get this to be covered by tax law.

The house accepted the changes to THEIR bill.

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.

The Constitution says the Senate can amend the bill with the House's approval. That's what happened. The House approved the changes to the bill. I understand that you don't like it but this happens all the time and this law is no different.

How Tax Laws Originate, Are Administered, and Are Adjudicated

To understand income tax, we need to have an understanding of the sources of tax rules. The sources include the laws passed by Congress, congressional committee reports, Treasury Department regulations and other pronouncements, and court decisions. The sources then are legislative, administrative, and judicial.

Statutory sources of tax laws. Federal tax legislation generally originates in the House Ways and Means Committee. Tax bills can originate in the Senate where they are usually amendments to other legislation. Once the House and Senate have passed tax legislation, the bills go to the president for approval or veto.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How Tax Laws Originate, Are Administered, and Are Adjudicated

To understand income tax, we need to have an understanding of the sources of tax rules. The sources include the laws passed by Congress, congressional committee reports, Treasury Department regulations and other pronouncements, and court decisions. The sources then are legislative, administrative, and judicial.

Statutory sources of tax laws. Federal tax legislation generally originates in the House Ways and Means Committee. Tax bills can originate in the Senate where they are usually amendments to other legislation. Once the House and Senate have passed tax legislation, the bills go to the president for approval or veto.

key word is amendments to OTHER bills.

not create your own bill, or highjack a bill rewright it and say the house already passed it after 98% of it was rewrittin.

thats why we have the SCOTUS, its one sentence be you read it differently then i do.

Link to video

Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


I think the he is trying to say that the bait and switch which is being attempted did originally come from the house, however it was not authored in the house, it was wiped clean and rewritten completely by the senate, which means the senate got a blank paper with the house header on it and wrote whatever tax code they wanted, under the guise it originated in the house. Which obviously it did not.

Making this a clear cut case of conflict of interest, not to mention it is an obvious attempt to subvert the constitutional authority granted to the house. Things like this are the reason the constitution seperated these powers in the first place. I believe that Justice Roberts, ruled the way he did intentionally, knowing that it was authored in the senate, and that it would be back in front of them on this basis very soon. When it does come before them and they strike it down on the grounds that it is the senate attempting to overstep their bounds, it won't be on the heads of SCOTUS, but on the bedrock of constitutional law, thus relieving the court of having to make a decision on a law they felt was going to be too close to forcing the judges to make law instead of interpreting it.

If this is the case then it is refreshing seeing the SCOTUS act like the adults, while the kids bicker about nothing in thehouse and senate. Just like the for fathers would have wanted. How glorious to see our wanderous nations inner working funtioning like a well oiled machine.

Just simply GLORIOUS!

However if I am wrong, GOD/ ALLAH/BUDDA insert yur particular GOD here. Help us all, the next thing they force us to buy, will be whatever their corprate masters decide we need when they decide we need it.

reply to post by camaro68ss


It WAS an amendment to the House bill. It was a big one. A complex one. One you don't like. But the House agreed to it. (See this post)

This happens regularly.

reply to post by reddwhite


you may have something, maybe thats why Justice Roberts did it. but by doing the way he did, he blow the door open for future "Taxes" that force you to buy a product and services or face fines/jail time.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Link to video

Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

The last minute or so of this video explains that it was not passed as a tax and for that reason it was not lawfully passed.

This bill hijacking BS is just plain wrong and needs to stop.

The SCOTUS does not have the authority to amend the wording on a Bill. If it is not defined as a tax, but is because the SCOTUS says it is then it must be re-written to state that it is a tax. So says I!

reply to post by Numbers33four

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.

Now this make me wonder if Roberts knew exactly what he was doing.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

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

Maybe he did know.

honestly, i don't think that's going to fly. it's not a tax bill it's a healthcare bill. while it has a penalty IN IT the bill itself is not a revenue bill. only people who don't have insurance will pay the penalty NOT EVERYONE. i think it's grasping at straws.

Originally posted by pasiphae
honestly, i don't think that's going to fly. it's not a tax bill it's a healthcare bill. while it has a penalty IN IT the bill itself is not a revenue bill. only people who don't have insurance will pay the penalty NOT EVERYONE. i think it's grasping at straws.

Supreme court ruled it relies on a tax for implementation. Making it a tax bill as well as a healthcare bill. I dont see it as grasping at straws. He put "it relies on a tax" in there for a reason.

Originally posted by pasiphae
honestly, i don't think that's going to fly. it's not a tax bill it's a healthcare bill. while it has a penalty IN IT the bill itself is not a revenue bill. only people who don't have insurance will pay the penalty NOT EVERYONE. i think it's grasping at straws.

here's a link to a forbes article that says it originated in the house anyway. it's not a long article....

www.forbes.com...

Reason states that if the procedure was incorrect, some Congress person who is not in favor of the provisions would have already be working to shot the thing down. I can't believe they are all clueless since working the system is how so many outrageous laws and funds make it through.

This is still a matter of contention... and is certainly destined for some more "unprecedented" challenges, despite the media spin of the finality of the ruling.

...Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.

The reasoning underlying the 5 to 4 majority opinion is the court’s unprecedented pronouncement that Congress' power to tax is unlimited. The majority held that the extraction of thousands of dollars per year by the IRS from individuals who do not have health insurance is not a fine, not a punishment, not a payment for government-provided health insurance, not a shared responsibility -- all of which the statute says it is -- but rather is an inducement in the form of a tax.

(((emphasis mine)))

Perhaps to those who wish it to be more simple this is a rhetorical inconvenience... but the framework was constructed to avoid what has happened.

The statute is more than 2,400 pages in length, and it establishes the federal micromanagement of about 16 percent of the national economy. And the court justified it constitutionally by calling it a tax.

from: A vast new federal power

I agree with this particular pundit (on this point)

Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House (which this law did not), and it must be applied for doing something (like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel), not for doing nothing.

What this Supreme Court has done is solidify the already inflated self-image of Congress to make it all the more clear --- they are not our servants... they are our rulers.... and since they are all beholden, owed, or actually part of the corporate cabal/regime which has usurped the American citizens place as those who determine the national agenda, it means we are economically subjugated now, not only to the private global transnational banking cartel via their fiat currency and monopoly on monetary policy and interest... but we are also compelled - by birth - to give the insurance industry... (a subsidiary of the financial cartel) .... whatever money their actuarial tables demand we give....

Life Tax... only American commercial interests could fix it so we are legally compelled to give the insurance industry our business.... for existing....

By the way... I suspect strongly that despite populism in political theater.... few really had any intention of resisting this development.... they (the political creatures) will all benefit directly from this....

Originally posted by pasiphae

Originally posted by pasiphae
honestly, i don't think that's going to fly. it's not a tax bill it's a healthcare bill. while it has a penalty IN IT the bill itself is not a revenue bill. only people who don't have insurance will pay the penalty NOT EVERYONE. i think it's grasping at straws.

here's a link to a forbes article that says it originated in the house anyway. it's not a long article....

www.forbes.com...

It did come from the house as a completely different bill. the Senate, keeps the header, wipped it clean and re wrote it. that a bunch of bull. you say that ok to do? whats the point of having a house and senate when the senate can do anything and get away with it...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't like it cuz it's an end run around the constitution.
Instead of debating the house bill like they should have.
They used their own bill. Hijacked another bill that was passed and then reconciled. Which limits bill debate to 24 hours.

They rammed their version down the houses throat.

Again the public gets screwed.

But this will come up again in the scotus. And we'll see how it goes then.

I'm betting it will be ruled unconstitutional because there is no way that this law can be applied evenly to everyone.
If you don't pay taxes how can the IRS penalize you?
smh

reply to post by Maxmars


Do you think, us puny servants, stumbled upon a future court case challenging the constitutionality of the senate writing a tax bill?

have not heard anyone in the MSM look at this in this light yet.

I'm betting it will be ruled unconstitutional because there is no way that this law can be applied evenly to everyone.

Didn't the group who determines that fact just state it was...