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: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Well... it is an election year... and the media only reports what it is paid to report...

soon enough... there is no way to avoid that this will have to be 'reconsidered' somehow...

unless the whole point is to create further enhanced access for the financial industry into our 'stream of labor/wealth'... just like social security.

It's a multi-dimensional end run, actually... and "the party" (there's only one) is celebrating.... watch for the next big shindig at the CFR.... I bet all the Big Insurance honcho's will be there... not that it will be reported by the press.


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




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Numbers33four
 


They have a state constitution to deal with, which is an exact copy of the U.S. constitution.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Thank you, that's what I was trying to explain here and that's exactly what happened. It was sponsored in the house, went to committee, passed the house. The senate amended it, it went back to the house for consideration and they agreed on the changes, then sent it back to the senate and it was passed, then signed by the president. Exact same way we do it in our legislature in my state.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I think this whole government tax vs fee vs penalty situation is nothing but hog wash of words.

Even at local levels of government there are taxes and fees which are approved by the same legislature members. If you pay a tax by card, there is another fee. It is all gathering money to pay for that government. Your tax is just a bit higher depending on how it is paid, much like what date it is paid.

So how the wording is going to lessen the cost to the payer? It's a fee not a tax, see we didn't up up taxes.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


IMHO too many of us ATSers are giving way to much credit to those in office. Have you ever listened to them before? They are some of the dumbest people in the world, they know less than nothing about everything. If involves anything that doesn't have them or their self interests as the center of the universe, it is like watching our dumbass president go blank when the teleprompter stops working. These people are idiots of the highest order. I wouldn't think them capable of much more than personal greed, and street thug level strong arming.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Here's an interesting little quirk. Certain religions that have issues with insurance are exempt from the mandate. So, if the Obamacare mandate is a tax, that means that you get a tax break for being a member of a certain religion. I'm pretty sure that giving tax breaks to some religions and not others is not Constitutional.
edit on 3-7-2012 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Here is the angle you can go on. Obama keeps saying its not a tax, so let him keep saying its not a tax. If its not a tax than he has no authority to mandate it it as a penalty. He can only mandate it is a tax. He is stuck as he doesn't want to tell the American people its a tax. He will eventually and spin it to them and they will buy into it like they always do through television.

T.V. will rot the brain.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Not necessarily.
They quashed any notion that it could be applied under commerce clause.

But then again what do I know.
They could rule in it's favor again if it's brought up to scotus.

Why this tax isn't just collected by the government is beyond me.

Why should I go out and get insurance if I can't afford it. And then be penalized because I couldn't afford it?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


So vote for him again and see what you get. Remember he promised Hope and Change? This is what you get.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


If the same court members change their minds, that makes them look inept.

Maybe in the future, with new members, but how long will it take for a few to resign and new ones appointed? Years...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:00 PM
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


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)


An amendment is a slight change or modification or addition, it is not a well it has the same NUMBER????

the only thing even remotely similar to the original bill that passed the house is the bill number, it wasn't even for the same purpose,. There is no way in hell you could even BEGIN to consider them the same bill with amendments...

Jaden



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

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.


That book is not the constitution.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Legally it is the same bill. An Amendment can mean any sort of change by definition, the constitution doesn't state a limit to the amount of amending so the bill appears to be completely valid.


AMENDMENT, legislation. An alteration or change of something proposed in a bill.

2. Either house of the legislature has a right to make amendments; but, when so made, they must be sanctioned by the other house before they can become a law. The senate has no power to originate any money bills, (q. v,) but may propose and make amendments to such as have passed the House of representatives. Vide Congress; Senate.



legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Ummm, You do know that this bill originated in the House of Reps and was passed don't you ?

Don't you ?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I'm so darn confused with all the legal-eeze on this thing ...

The unsustainable monstrosity Obamacare ... it didn't get originally approved as a 'TAX'.
BUT SCOTUS passed it as a 'TAX'.
Does that mean it has to go back to get reapproved through the channels???
I keep asking the question and getting different answers ...

UGH.


edit on 7/4/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Legally it is the same bill.

Are you sure? The wording is different from SCOTUS and the intent is different.
One passed as a mandate .. another passed as a 'tax'.
Legally these things have to be very percise. I don't know if it makes it or not.
ugh and double ugh. It's confusing!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I knew it, when the bill was passed the first thing I heard in a government radio from experts on constitutional law was that the bill was no such a win after all and the reason was just like you tittle, As a mandate was strike down to avoid future dealings under mandate but as a tax it can be implemented, but for that it has to go back with a different rewording of the mandate Aka tax

Yes when I posted about this bit of information on the main thread on the Obamacare constitutional, I got chew up by those that were under the impression that I had no clue what this is all about.

I am not expert but I took government law the experts on constitutional law lay it very good, only congress can legislate and pass taxes and have to be originated in the house

So did Justice Roberts just handle the elections to Romney? you bet your arse he did

The man knows his law and he was brilliant, he may look like a sell out but he just make possible for the people to have a vote on the biggest mammoth tax in history during a recession

Obamacare will die when Obama lose the elections in november.


Time to bring something on the table that will not sell the middle class tax payer to private corrupted insurance companies and that will really help the needy and poor.

Time to force the politicraps to work for the people.

edit on 4-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Trust me, the bill have to be reworded and have to go to the house, again only congress can legislate on taxes and that means the original bill was never approved by the house, just the senate, now it has to go to the House before reach the senate as new taxes.

The bill wil take different meaning once is put in house as a tax bill.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


Obama is holding his none tax rhetoric because he knows that the legality of the bill in question under the mandate, he also knows that the bill will have to go back to the house as a tax he doesn't want that, he doesn't want the people to think that his so biggest accomplishment to his crapy administration is the biggest tax increase in American history to the middle class.

That is why he keeps telling is not tax, but rest assure a tax it will be in order to have the monstrosity reworded from mandate to tax aka penalty.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 


The bill number, yes, it was passed in the house first. But when it went to the senate, it was gutted and completely changed to a new bill. Therefore complete creating there own bill with taxes in it.

Did you know that... Did you?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join