New Court Challenge: “Origination Clause” challenge to Obamacare

Now a new twist in the ObamaCare saga.

A lawsuit has been filed that challenges the "origination" of the bill itself.

A tax law must originate in the House according to the Constitution.

We know the PPACA was a "variation" of a bill passed by the House called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590)

That bill was apparently completely gutted by the Senate and renamed.

This is what became the PPACA.

The question I think is whether the Senate can make a complete change and submit it back to the house as a tax.

Perhaps this is why we kept hearing about how it "was not a tax !" ... "It's not a tax", etc.

Could it be the Democrats with full control of Congressional committees in 2009 were this arrogant ?

Let's figure this one out.

Did the original bill contain anything in common with what became the PPACA ?

We know the old saying "Live by the sword, die by the sword"

Washington, D.C.; November 11, 2013: Pacific Legal Foundation's legal challenge to Obamacare received important backing in the form of an amicus brief filed by Congressman Trent Franks, R-Arizona, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, joined by several dozen other members of the House.

The amicus brief was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in PLF's case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. ..........

...... Majority Leader Harry Reid launched the law in the Senate, by taking an entirely unrelated House bill on housing for veterans, stripping it, and inserting the language that became Obamacare.

“Origination Clause” challenge to Obamacare
_______________

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

PPACA - wiki

can anybody explain the legal details of the original (H.R. 3590)

I think this may just be political.

reply to post by xuenchen


This is what I have been saying, that only the House has the authority to originate tax bills...and people said I was wrong....
By rights, after obamacare was declared a tax, it should have been sent to the House to be rewritten and or voted on and then sent back to the Senate and voted on....

The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before.

So technically it originated in the House.

Not really any case here.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Did it go back to the house once it was re-written or was it just "passed?"

Yes it went back to the House and was passed 219-212.

Spookybelle
Yes it went back to the House and was passed 219-212.

Do you have the laws text? If so, look around 1550 or right abouts.

Wait lets see, I got it.

SEC. 1555. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS. No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

reply to post by Nephalim


I'm not sure how that relates to the origin of this bill being constitutional or not.

I don't like the legislation either but there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Anyone trying to get that decision out of a court is going to be disappointed.

Spookybelle
reply to post by Nephalim

 

I'm not sure how that relates to the origin of this bill being constitutional or not.

I don't like the legislation either but there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Anyone trying to get that decision out of a court is going to be disappointed.

I agree. Seems the original post according to your opinion doesnt stand sit or walk.
Im just wondering what the point of writing this law was only to include what I linked. If insurance companies didnt have to go along with it, why did they and why did people lose existing coverage. Furthermore, why is congress trying to write another deal that says you can keep your old plan and now the dems are opposing that.

whats it all for?

Thanks for the update on this, I remember very clear that when the Supreme court took the constitutionality of the ACA it was only on the part of the mandate, but what people didn't understood is that when the Supreme court changed the wording to "tax" it actually opened a can of worms and for the ACA to further be challenged in courts.

While many were celebrating the Supreme court ruling, experts on constitutional laws were telling in the news that it was nothing to be celebrated on, that once ACA was enforce the real challenging was to begin.

We know right now that the ACA is becoming a failure and is turning into next elections main political issue, as we know already many Democrats in Washington are dissenting and going against ACA to distance themselves from the mess and failure that will become.

ACA was a mistake, the biggest blunder that the acting party created.

reply to post by marg6043



See that's another interesting point. government keeps saying "we have to stop governing by manufactured crisis" or some mess like that dont they? Does that mean that people in the federal government have been purposely subjecting the people to crisis in order to influence elections or legislation?

I seem to recall a government shutdown recently. I wonder what else that (governing by manufactured crisis) applies to in terms of other events. Wouldn't that be against the law?

Yes I saw this while at work, and I must say that I have been wondering all along why this wasn't challenged. If the courts uphold our constitution, there will be zero chance of this failing. But if our constitution is forever lost, then well, what can I say, the US will be lost without it. Yes, Obama will have knocked the greatest country down a few notches just like he promised.

Spookybelle
The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before.

So technically it originated in the House.

Not really any case here.

I accidentally starred you, so you can minus one. The senate violated the spirit of Article I, section 7, so your idea will not pass muster.

Section 7.

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.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Spookybelle
The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before.

So technically it originated in the House.

Not really any case here.

Whether the bill originated in the House or not is academic. Taxes are supposed to originate in the House.
Technically, the text imposing a tax was inserted by the Senate, thus not 'originating' in the House.