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: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Tell it to Social Security and Medicaid.


I love when ATS read some right wing blog and think they are smarter than the SC, House of Reps, President, etc when it comes to what they can and cannot legally do. I would give you one but not all 3.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
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.
edit on 3-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


What??????


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.


The key word is clearly originate.
It is in the title of this thread.
It is in the opening post.
It is your entire point.
O R I G I N A T E...originate. See it up there?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel



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...


I am noticing a heavy pattern of denial here.
ACA will still be overturned or declared unconstitutional.
Obama will still be found ineligible to be president.
I think 2010 is going to happen all over again too.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Since when did our government begin following the guidelines set out in the Constitution. There have been far more flagrant violations of its rules than this. I also doubt that this is the reason the Obama administration is denying it is a tax so much as they are trying to smoke screen just who all the money is being funneled to ( Federal Reserve and corrupt international banks )



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Another thing i would like to add that could bring more "ammo" to the case. The senate passed this as a tax. on bills that are taxes, the senate only needs 51 votes to pass the bill. Any other bill that is not a tax needs to pass the senate with a filibuster proof 60 votes. This bill was passed with, you guessed it, 51 votes!

This is really getting me thinking. How come we have not heard this brought up by the MSM. There to busy point fingers at each other to really dig into this.
edit on 5-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Tell it to Social Security and Medicaid.


I love when ATS read some right wing blog and think they are smarter than the SC, House of Reps, President, etc when it comes to what they can and cannot legally do. I would give you one but not all 3.


No buddy, This “right wing blog” is pointing, with evidence, that this bill could be unconstitutional based off how our governmental passed it in the house and the senate.

You come on here and point fingers saying this is stupid, with no evidence on how or why this argument is stupid. I would ahve to check but i dont think SS or Medicare were drafted in the senate first so I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Please explain…..



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


What facts are those?
Anyone that claims to know more than a judge or an elected official is fine by me. They probably do. When a blog claims to know more than all those opposing branches of government full of people then I need a little something more to go on.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


What facts are those?
Anyone that claims to know more than a judge or an elected official is fine by me. They probably do. When a blog claims to know more than all those opposing branches of government full of people then I need a little something more to go on.


please read again "No buddy, This “right wing blog” is pointing, with evidence, that this bill could be unconstitutional based off how our governmental passed it in the house and the senate."

there is evidence that this bill was drafted unconstitutionally. This is a completly different argument then the one presented to the SCOTUS last week. last week was about obamacare and if it was a tax or fee and if it was constitutional to force fees on partys not participating in commerce. Based on the ruling, it is constitutional to “tax” people not participating in commerce. (i know, way over your head obviously)

Now the new argument is it is unconstitutional for the senate to levy taxes, after all this bill was drafted and passed in the senate then went to the house. 16th amendment allows only “congress” to levy taxes on the people. so if a tax is to pass it must first be drafted in the house not the senate.

What other "facts" do you need, or is this just stupid because a citizen found this out first and not a congress man. why do you think Obama for the longest time keeps saying, "this is not a tax"? because he know if it is a tax, its unconstitutional based off the 16th amendment.

Check Mate!
edit on 5-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think those that see this as partisan can not allow themselves to accept the immensely simple reality at play here.

For them, it may be a matter of the primary focus of the popularity contest, and who can blame them when the propaganda and public relations machinery is funneling millions into the 5 organizations that constitute today's mainstream media industry? Add to that the political celebrity threat of reduced access to them and their money-making antics, and it's easy to see why and how we might only get to hear that "the masters have made this declaration - so it is incontestable" from some; and from others we see the "you gotta love the underdog" theme they play at.

Ultimately, if you are willing to pronounce that "because one group of elites say something," the people of the nation must acquiesce; then good luck with your future.

This will ultimately be another case of "the people have no redress." Watch for it....

Soon the association will be made with the power to challenge this.. and the fact that we haven't had a budget for most of this administration's term. Any future challenge would be (or could be) tied to budget development....

Politically - it will be another "sensational show." meanwhile, being born in the United States now means you owe money to a private insurance company.. and it will become a crime not to pay.... especially once the IRS receives their mandate to "enforce" the collection.

For some reason - people think that this bill solves some problem.... I can't decide if that's ironically tragic, or comedically naive.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 



www.gpo.gov...


Public Law 111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Legislative History
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 155 (2009):

Oct. 7, 8, considered and passed
House.

Nov. 21, 30, Dec. 1-10, 13, 15, 16,
19-24, considered and passed
Senate, amended.

Vol. 156 (2010):
Mar. 21, House concurred in Senate
amendments.

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2010):
Mar. 23, Presidential remarks.





BH already showed you this on the first page...but for some reason you seem to be ignoring it.
edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by camaro68ss
 



www.gpo.gov...


Public Law 111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Legislative History
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 155 (2009):

Oct. 7, 8, considered and passed
House.

Nov. 21, 30, Dec. 1-10, 13, 15, 16,
19-24, considered and passed
Senate, amended.

Vol. 156 (2010):
Mar. 21, House concurred in Senate
amendments.

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2010):
Mar. 23, Presidential remarks.





BH already showed you this on the first page...but for some reason you seem to be ignoring it.
edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


you fail to grasp the fact that once this bill, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, was passed in the house. The senate took it and COMPLETELY rewrote the whole document and turned it to the Affordable care act that had this “tax” in it. An amendment is A change or addition to a legal document. Not a Complete rewriting of a document, that’s not an amendment, that a new document. This is why it needs to go back up to the SCOTUS so they can rule the constitutionality of amendments and the definition of an amendment. Is it slight changes to a bill or does a complete over haul of a bill void the legal term of “Amendment”

In other words what’s the point of having a house and a senate (separations of power) when the senate can create a tax bill for the people. You might as well have just combined houses if this new find is constitutional.

for you to understand this more the house represents the people, the senate is supposed to represent the states themselves.

edit on 5-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


your spot on. I left the R vs D paradigm months ago and never turned back. because of it I've grown to see both partys are the root of the problem. both partys pass laws that sink us faster into tyranny. there are alot of smart people out there but they play into this game. It gets old quick once you step out of the box. sometime you just want to slap these people and yell at them WAKE UP!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The official congressional record disagrees with you.

Sorry...but you are wrong.

edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
First, the Origination Clause has only sparingly been used to invalidate legislation. In fact, it would be very difficult to find an instance where a law was invalidated because of the Origination Clause.

The Supreme Court has refused to invalidate legislation where the purpose of the law was to commence or maintain a federal program and the revenue raising was only incidental to the defraying the expenses of that program.
Twin City Bank v. Nebeker (1897) 167 US 196, 42 L.Ed 134, 17 S.Ct 766;
US v. Norton (1876) 91 US (1 Otto) 566, 23 L.Ed 545
.


In particular, the Affordable Care Act actually commenced as a House bill which was then amended by the Senate, so it is valid under the Origination Clause:

www.californiaprogressreport.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The official congressional record disagrees with you.

Sorry...but you are wrong.

edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


step out of the box outkast, your stuck in the right vs left game. The bill was passed by 416 votes in 2008 when it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. it was then changed A YEAR LATER. come on outkast open your eyes man. how many times do i need to rewrite this....



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The official congressional record disagrees with you.

Sorry...but you are wrong.

edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


step out of the box outkast, your stuck in the right vs left game. The bill was passed by 416 votes in 2008 when it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. it was then changed A YEAR LATER. come on outkast open your eyes man. how many times do i need to rewrite this....


Please go review the legislation history

www.gpo.gov...

All in 2009.

And even if it wasn't, this is what politicians do...they use the rules to get legislation passed.


Tell me...why isn't the GOP and top Republicans making this claim???

Why is it only on Right Wing blogs and message boards???
edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Here in America, many of us speak English.
Amend is an English word meaning "to change."
The bill was changed, was it not?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The official congressional record disagrees with you.

Sorry...but you are wrong.

edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


step out of the box outkast, your stuck in the right vs left game. The bill was passed by 416 votes in 2008 when it was called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. it was then changed A YEAR LATER. come on outkast open your eyes man. how many times do i need to rewrite this....


Please go review the legislation history

www.gpo.gov...

All in 2009.

And even if it wasn't, this is what politicians do...they use the rules to get legislation passed.


Tell me...why isn't the GOP and top Republicans making this claim???

Why is it only on Right Wing blogs and message boards???
edit on 5-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


outkast, your so blinded with the left vs right, again, step out of the drone box and think for yourself. look up

"Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act" (H.R. 3590)

was passed by the house. Was sent to the Sanate and rewriten to

"Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (HR 3590)

both are the same HR numbers, do your DD. Im tired of repeating myself to people that wont open there eyes or ear and are to blinded by party lines. get over it!



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Here in America, many of us speak English.
Amend is an English word meaning "to change."
The bill was changed, was it not?


Ive already addressed this.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is a legal deception. Please read... (Good stuff at the bottom)

Did not this bill originate in the Senate? According the the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;" Did Chief Justice Roberts rule unconstitutionally by declaring it a "Tax?" According to my understanding of the Constitution, you can't create a bill with a penalty attached in the Senate, have it voted and approved in the House and then let the President sign it into law and then have the Supreme Court in a round about way declare it a Tax. That is like Dividing by Zero!!!

The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members. As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House, 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.

This deception is like taking a Holy Bible, bleaching out the pages, writing the Koran on the blank pages and then selling it as an authentic authoritative Bible because it originated as a Holy Bible.

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




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join