% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

  • ilap2004 ilap2004 Apr 2, 2013 3:52 PM Flag

    The “Origination Clause” Attack on ObamaCare


    The Washington Times reports that a decision from the District Court is imminent. The argument, in a nutshell, is that ObamaCare being a tax, the Constitution requires it to “originate” in the House:

    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.

    The lawsuit is brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which explained how ObamaCare came about:

    [T]he Obama Administration’s health care law did not originate in the House; it originated in the Senate, when Senator Harry Reid “amended” a bill the House had passed by striking out all of its text and replacing it with the Senate-written bill that eventually became Obamacare.

    The Washington Times article says the government has filed a brief saying that shell bills are constitutional:

    “This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”

    The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another:

    “Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue. Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue.”

    The original bill passed by the House of Representatives was the “Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009.” Reid literally used that bill as a shell, eliminated every word, and replaced it with the language of ObamaCare. It is as cynical a bypass of the Origination Clause as one can imagine.

    We’ll soon learn if the District Court believes the Origination Clause means anything.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • This is the SLW board. Nobody cares.
      Any questions?

    • It is most bewildering to read your posts. Why don't you look at Canada ?
      We don't have any deductions for HealthCare. We pay it all with our taxes.
      That means everybody, everybody with a valid Health Card is covered.
      There is no debate about Health Care. We sort of take it for granted.
      Our meaning for "government" is: "All (government) for one, and one for all".
      The number One in the World, (United States), is transferring the wealth
      from the Poor to the Rich. The poor people with never win, and the rich people
      are organized (GOP). That's my take.

    • I read about this last night myself. The piece that I had said that in previous instances other bills had been challenged on the same grounds. The challenges failed.

      Americans are either going to stand their ground and say hell refusing to take part or pay the piper or they are going to have Obamacare. Don't wait for the GOP to do anything about it either. Despite the rhetoric they are nearly as guilty or if you don't like that term, use complicit.

    • WELL, NOW IT BECOMES CLEAR WHY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DECLARED OBAMACARE TO BE A TAX, CONFOUNDING AND OUTRAGING THE FAR RIGHT...who, as is typical, were too dumb to realize that he was handing them a back door way to overthrow Obamacare. Since Roberts is generally a Conservative, he shocked many by handing Obama what is likely to turn out to be a superficial and temporary victory. Can't really recall all the details of that year or so ago case, but I remember clearly the shock of all, and the vicious anger of the far right, that Roberts then seemed to side with Obama.

27.82-0.87(-3.03%)Sep 23 4:02 PMEDT