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: 5
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

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.


You got the wrong address.

I read your post. What it basically says is that this is not an amendment because the whole thing was changed.

Uh huh....and?
Amend means to change. You mean to tell me it is not a change because it was changed?




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by camaro68ss

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.


You got the wrong address.

I read your post. What it basically says is that this is not an amendment because the whole thing was changed.

Uh huh....and?
Amend means to change. You mean to tell me it is not a change because it was changed?



First off I’m waiting for outkasters omission of being wrong. But I know we will never get that because he is so far in the L vs R paradigm and to proud.

Second. Yes, amendment means to change. Does it mean to change a bill 100%, call it a different name, and force feed it down the Americans throats? I don’t know. It’s up to the SCOTUS to determine that. If that’s the case, then the rules of separations of powers is thrown out the door. No need to have a senate and house anymore. They should join as one.

Do you think its ok to “hijack” a bill, change it 100% and call it an amendment? I don’t, I call it a new bill. What do you say?

Don’t answer that, I already know your answer. “ O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma… Hope and change, hope and change. Move forward! Comrades!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
First off I’m waiting for outkasters omission of being wrong. But I know we will never get that because he is so far in the L vs R paradigm and to proud.

Two words for you to look up when you get free time.
Paradigm.
Omission.


Second. Yes, amendment means to change. Does it mean to change a bill 100%, call it a different name, and force feed it down the Americans throats? I don’t know.


Change means change. There is not a limit on how much change is change. Nothing was rammed down my throat so keep your personal life to relevant threads.

It’s up to the SCOTUS to determine that. If that’s the case, then the rules of separations of powers is thrown out the door. No need to have a senate and house anymore. They should join as one.


You know that they already ruled on this dont you?


Do you think its ok to “hijack” a bill, change it 100% and call it an amendment? I don’t, I call it a new bill. What do you say?


How was it hijacked if the House approved the changes?


Don’t answer that, I already know your answer. “ O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma… Hope and change, hope and change. Move forward! Comrades!


Sounds like you have some issues you need to work on.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
No I don't know where they already ruled on "that" your going to have to show me



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
No I don't know where they already ruled on "that" your going to have to show me


Maybe I miss-read your post.
What exactly are you waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


excellent point... let's see if this can be weasel'ed out of

i bet it can, just look at the track record of the perp...posed as a disadvantaged foreigner to get the favorable grants to attend colleges on the affirmative action greased-wheels ...
but is a natural born citizen when it comes to elected office....having it both ways seems to be the norm for U-kno-who



related reading:

www.321gold.com...
Legal Gimmickry Rescues Obama

edit on 6-7-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


That is why I said that Roberts was brilliant he make sure that under the commerce clause no American is forced by the government into buying goods plus it has given a way for the voters to use the elections in November to vote against Obamacare.

Yes the bill will stay but no politician will amend the constitutions to make the bill a tax during the elections and because is now a Republican campaign if they win Obamacare wil become a Republican new bill, this one is going to be something to see.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I really love it when everyone ignores my message that contains the information they claim to want and disproves their argument. So here it is again:

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 and intended to defray 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...


To which I would add that the courts are very reluctant to second-guess the Congress on where a bill originated for the purpose of the Origination Clause:

Edelman v. Shalala (DNJ 1995) 892 F.Supp 639 aff'd 83 F3d 68.


edit on 7/6/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/6/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/6/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join