PDA

View Full Version : All Taxes Must Originate in the House.



Sev
06-29-2012, 05:43 PM
This is an interesting take.


<span style="color: #000000">http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-now-invalid-because-tax-bills-must-originate-house

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House</span>

Breaking News

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase - not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.

Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law.

</span>

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2012, 06:23 PM
You know???, that actually makes sense. sid

Sev
06-29-2012, 07:50 PM
Unfortunately.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/sa...e-in-the-house/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/)

Soflasnapper
06-29-2012, 07:55 PM
Never listen to an amateur claiming to understand a law or these legal matters in general.

Which includes me, of course. But it definitely includes this author, who is a writer, teacher, change agent, and social entrepreneur. Notice something? Not a lawyer, not a political scientist?

However, the fact is that the Senate took a House bill over, gutted it, but used it as the originating bill.

That is, the <s>forms of kanly</s> (sorry, a Dune reference) technicalities have been honored, in so much as they matter.

I think if you research it you will find that the 1982 DEFRA or TEFRA tax increase was written by then-Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Bob Dole. It did not appear to be a fatal aspect of that bill's provenance.

Sorry I didn't click Sev's own supplied link, which has the details I mentioned above.

Good catch, Sev!

From the comments section:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Someone correct me if I have this wrong, but for legislative rules purposes the mandate is not a tax just because one guy, Roberts, says it is. Even if he is the Chief Justice. The justices did not vote on whether or not it was a tax. They voted on whether or not it was constitutional. Roberts alone among the majority had a different reason for voting it constitutional.

So it is a tax for Roberts purposes but still not a tax for the purpose of Congressional legislation.</div></div>

Exactly right. Nobody in the court agreed with Robert's reason he found the mandate met Constitutional muster. They had their own reasons-- the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the General Welfare Clause.

Justice Ginsburg even wrote a dissent from Robert's majority opinion dismissal of the Commerce Clause's application.

Again, HAD IT BEEN A TAX, the high court couldn't have had jurisdiction over it (yet). So all 9 said it wasn't a tax. Roberts said it was almost like a tax.

Soflasnapper
06-29-2012, 08:12 PM
Here are the dissenting conservative judges explaining why it is not a tax:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagree with Roberts in their dissent. “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” the four Justices write. “[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’ Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a ‘penalty.’”

The dissenting Justices also argue that “judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling,” since the Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House of Representatives, “the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. …

The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. Petitioners’ Minimum Coverage Reply Brief 25. At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words. Tr. of Oral Arg. 79 (Mar. 27, 2012). One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.” </div></div>

LWW
06-30-2012, 02:03 AM
Talk about begging to be spoon fed ... methinks you just outdid Fats.

LWW
06-30-2012, 02:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is an interesting take.


<span style="color: #000000">http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-now-invalid-because-tax-bills-must-originate-house

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House</span>

Breaking News

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase - not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.

Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law.

</span> </div></div>

In post constitutional America, none of this matters.

The court has finally slain the moon at crazy leftist myth that it is a right wing court.

The current court has a well established history of promoting fascism.

The people are the only backstop left, and the people only have two remaining options. The first being the ballot box.

The second being that we heed the words of Thomas Jefferson:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. </div></div>

The storm clouds gather.

Qtec
06-30-2012, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The court has finally slain the moon at crazy leftist myth that it is a right wing court. </div></div>

BS. What about Citizens United and the striking down of 100 years of precedent in Montana??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON – If you thought the money race in the presidential campaign was already the Wild West, you haven’t seen anything yet.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Supreme Court this week struck down Montana’s century-old ban on corporate donations to political candidates. By upholding limitless political donations from corporations, the stage is set for campaigns and outside groups to press boundaries even further. Hundreds of millions of dollars in outside spending will continue to pour into the presidential election as super political action committees, or super PACs, are emboldened by the court’s ruling and feckless federal regulators.</span>

Super PACs are increasingly blurring the lines between their ability to spend freely on political campaigns and the legal prohibition against coordinating directly with politicians. There are renewed calls for new federal rules that would permit unlimited contributions directly to candidates or anonymous large donations.

And the U.S. watchdog agency responsible for enforcing the rules – the Federal Election Commission – has been ineffectual. The FEC’s six members – three Democrats and three Republicans – have been deadlocked, unable to decide just how far super PACs can coordinate with campaigns. </div></div>

If the Mandate was just a matter of law, how can there be such a divide in opinion on the SC?

Q.....???????????

LWW
06-30-2012, 06:13 AM
The SCOTUS is a majority fascist body that has betrayed it's intent as provided in the document it is sworn to uphold.

To come to this decision they had to use the mental gymnastics and doublethink required to determine that it is something ... a tax ... which it also insists that it is not.

They were appointed by fascist executives and voted upon by a fascist legislature.

The only real question is did John Roberts incite "WE THE PEOPLE" to toss the demokrooks and RINOs out by design or by arrogance?

Sev
06-30-2012, 08:34 AM
I am thinking that there may be a path to bring it back before the SCOTUS.

If I open up a bottle Coca Cola and swap its contents out for Pepsi and then reseal it.
Just because the label says Coca cola dose not make it so.

This technicality may they used on the bill may be a fatal flaw.

Perhaps not. However we all know how lawyers like to parse words.

Soflasnapper
06-30-2012, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Talk about begging to be spoon fed ... methinks you just outdid Fats. </div></div>

I'm quoting from the dissent in this case.

While I disagree with their jurisprudential philosophy, they are learned men of some intellect.

They are calling out calling the mandate penalty a tax as a sham argument. You appear to agree. All the justices agreed it was not, or the mandate and penalty aspect could not have been taken under review, until it actually was paid by someone.

So what is spoon feeding about that, in your view?

If they are correct, and as I said, you seem to agree, then there is no colorable issue as to origination in the House at all, as it is not a revenue or tax matter.

But I will agree with you, that there is massive BS all throughout this entire system.

For political purposes, the right now seizes on Roberts' incoherent contradiction to AGREE WITH HIS LAST VERSION OF THE FACTS. Forgetting about his FIRST version, and the unanimous view of all that it wasn't actually a tax at all.

LWW
06-30-2012, 10:45 AM
Sure you were.

LWW
06-30-2012, 10:48 AM
It's easy.

The COTUS guarantees free speech ... a state constitution cannot set that aside.

And, FWIW, I find it amusing that the moon at crazy left now wants to make astate's rights argument.

Soflasnapper
06-30-2012, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure you were. </div></div>

That my block quote comes from the dissent in this case is very easy to verify.

Do you claim it did not?