Sorry, NYT, but I just went and looked, and no one has passed an amendment repealing it.
As with Halbig, the Chief Justice may see this as a chance to rectify his previous screw up. When you strip out all the language of a House bill, leaving nothing but the bill number, it’s pretty clearly a violation of the spirit of the clause, no matter what kind of procedural games the Congress wants to play.
I think you mean Halbig. In that case the plaintiffs are saying that the SCOTUS should ignore the spirit of the law and its legislative history, in favor of one possible literal reading. The origination clause argument, by contrast, is that SCOTUS should strike down a law that literally complies with the Constitution, because the manner of its passage violates the spirit of the origination clause (which it most certainly does).
I’m guessing that Roberts would be very hesitant to strike down the ACA, and thereby void millions of insurance policies, on a “spirit of the clause” technicality.
My understanding is that the “strip out all the language of the House bill” maneuver has been used a number of times. If someone really thinks it’s important to put a stop to that practice they might have better luck challenging a piece of legislation that doesn’t carry quite as much political baggage. But I’m guessing that the plaintiffs care first about striking down the ACA, and only secondarily about how bills move through Congress.
“the SCOTUS should ignore the spirit of the law ”
What is the spirit of Obamacare? Lies, corruption, and incompetence?
“and its legislative history”
Or are they asking SCOTUS to look at its legislative history?
I know you meant the Origination clause but the case is about Obamacare.
“But I’m guessing that the plaintiffs care first about striking down the ACA, and only secondarily about how bills move through Congress.”
It would be fitting considering Obama and his Democrats were less concerned about following the law rather than unilaterally taking over a large segment of the economy and dictating decisions on everyone’s healthcare while squeezing the middle class to subsidize insurance for the classes above and below them.
It is really amazing how quick you can switch from the law is the law to the law is the spirit.
I’m guessing that Roberts would be very hesitant to strike down the ACA, and thereby void millions of insurance policies, on a “spirit of the clause” technicality.
His responsibility is to the Constitution, not millions of insurance policies.
I’m guessing that the plaintiffs care first about striking down the ACA, and only secondarily about how bills move through Congress.
I think that plaintiffs care about both. This was the last straw.
His responsibility is to the Constitution, not millions of insurance policies.
Indeed. But he might interpret that duty to mean that he has to avoid decisions that would put the prestige of the court, and therefore its ability to enforce the Constitution, in political peril. Again, I’m just guessing, but his decision on the individual mandate suggested a reluctance to strike down the law even over its least popular provision. Two years later, after an election and the rollout of the law’s main benefits, I suspect that he’d be even more reluctant to strike it down over a technical issue.
You mean, now that we’ve made people dependent, he’d be afraid to do anything to take their goodies away. Why should he care? You lefties have put the 9 in Black in the position of Omnipotence, beyond any sort of accountability to the people. I doubt Roberts will care how people feel
Jim
Judges aren’t supposed to strike laws based upon their popularity but based upon law.
Was the law unconstitutional, was it vague, does it conflict with other law,
I thought Roberts decision was directly on point. Obamacare Mandate is a behaviour tax credit. If you have insurance, you get a tax credit, otherwise you pay the tax.
Now the Republicans went crazy screaming about the tax, and the Dems spent 4 years cowering about a “Tax Increase”, but, yeah, that’s what it was.
Wodun wrote:
“It is really amazing how quick you can switch from the law is the law to the law is the spirit.”
isn’t it though?
Months ago all we got from Jim was that “the law is the law get over it”
Now, he wants everyone to look the other way when he and his Marxist cronies are acting 180 degrees to “the law is the law” and are called on it.
The duplicity of these people…………..
Now, he wants everyone to look the other way when he and his Marxist cronies are acting 180 degrees to “the law is the law”
There’s no need to look the other way. The law in this case — the Constitution — says that revenue bills have to originate in the House. The PPACA originated as a bill passed by the House. If you believe “the law is the law”, you should be happy that the letter of the law was observed.
Show me that it originated in the house.
See the legislative history. It was H.R. 3590 (i.e. House Resolution 3590).
Except that the original bill was not revenue generating and the Obama administration position was/is that Obamacare is not a tax. Stripping all of the text of the og bill is hardly an amendment. It is a total rewriting and also totally unrelated to the og bill. It is corruption of the worst kind and sadly par for the course in the Obama administration.
“Again, if striking every last word of an unrelated House revenue bill satisfies the requirement that the House originated bill be amended, then the Origination Clause is rendered a nullity.”
Yup. Why even bother having two branches of Congress? The idea that the Senate can unilaterally rewrite any bill means that the House is extinct. How could a constitutional law professor inflict this conflict on our country?
Anyone who likes the law should never watch the sausage getting made.
I’d say that the court will not touch this as it’s a “Political Question”.
While it may seem unappealing, the house routinely sends over shell bills
that become senate revenue bills, I’ve seen some state legislatures send out
blank shell bills, as a courtesy and those are the key legislation of the year.
If Rand wants the ACA ended, it should end the way it started, a bill should move
through the legislature to end it. If the House GOP isn’t willing to send over
a bill, and use their majority to somehow force the question.
then it’s clearly a political question.
Beohner should Impeach Obama and shutdown the government, Maybe
a bunch of people in silly costumes can occupy the Mall. Perhaps if they had
Teabags hanging from their hats, they could force the gears to grind to a halt.
Otherwise, there is an election in November.
Except that the original bill was not revenue generating
The Constitution nowhere states that revenue bills have to raise revenue in all their incarnations before final passage.
Stripping all of the text of the og bill is hardly an amendment
It most definitely is — an amendment is any change. Do you want to give SCOTUS the power to decide which changes are amendments, and which aren’t? Where exactly are they supposed to draw that line?
then the Origination Clause is rendered a nullity
No, you still can’t raise revenue without the House passing a bill, both before and after any Senate amendments (including wholesale replacement).
Why even bother having two branches of Congress?
They both have to pass the bill, and if it raises revenue the House has to pass it before the Senate (and again afterwards, if the Senate makes any changes).
The idea that the Senate can unilaterally rewrite any bill means that the House is extinct.
You are very confused. The Senate can unilaterally rewrite any House bill, but it won’t become law unless the House passes it again in its amended form.
“The PPACA originated as a bill passed by the House. ”
Thati is, of course, your side of the argument. Just repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Yet another Big Lie. ™
There’s another side and it’s much stronger.
Perhaps, you could find a Federal court ruling which overturned
a piece of legislation under the power of the origination clause?
Of course not, you idiot. That’s why they’re filing the suit — in order to finally adjudicate it.
There’s another side and it’s much stronger.
Do tell. Where do you think House Resolution 3590 originated?
“Do tell. Where do you think House Resolution 3590 originated?”
Strawman ( what a surprise). Though one might ask: Is it legal to gut a bill but keep the number in play?
the tax originated in the senate.
Also, gutting a bill to make it a placeholder and then laying on a revenue generator in the hulk of the gutted bill is not very wise of the Socialist, criminal Senate.
Unless that technique is struck down (and it should be), you will be the victim of that technique when a party other than the Marxist Socialist Dems controls both houses.
And you won’t like it very much.
So in addition to being a violation of the law, it’s incredibly stupid and is a major step towards anarchy. The rules in the Constitution are there for a reason: ignore them at your peril.
Though one might ask: Is it legal to gut a bill but keep the number in play?
Yes, of course it is. If you can change one word of a bill, you can change all the words.
Unless that technique is struck down (and it should be), you will be the victim of that technique when a party other than the Marxist Socialist Dems controls both houses.
I’m guessing that I already was a “victim” the last time the GOP held both houses. I didn’t mind; if the people give one party control of both houses, and both houses pass a bill, it should go to the President, and not be struck down on some technicality.
So in addition to being a violation of the law
It isn’t.
it’s incredibly stupid and is a major step towards anarchy
The only thing standing between us and anarchy is arbitrary limits on how thoroughly the Senate can amend House bills? You can’t be serious.
The rules in the Constitution are there for a reason
I’d love to hear your take on the reasons for the Origination Clause.
Why not go one more step down the rabbit hole? This was better than AA’s take on it, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/19/another-specious-defense-of-obamacare/
“My understanding is that the “strip out all the language of the House bill” maneuver has been used a number of times.”
Like any other illegal act, it only goes to the courts if there’s a suit or arrest etc. Numerous violations do not negate the illegality. Only Liberal marxist statist power-hungry buffoons want to ignore laws and then declare the law null and void simply on the basis of the violations.
“But I’m guessing that the plaintiffs care first about striking down the ACA, and only secondarily about how bills move through Congress.”
This of course is WHY violations make it to court…….the violations are egregious enough.
It’s much like a voice vote.
A voice vote, is a way to avoid the political heat. Many things are passed on voice votes.
I’m not getting my hopes up over this case. The Constitution only means what 5+ supreme court (deliberately not capitalized) justices say it means. At best, it’s only a rough guideline to their actions.
See the legislative history. It was H.R. 3590 (i.e. House Resolution 3590).
All I see is an amended senate bill. But it’s within the spirit of the law.
Is it really that difficult to follow? You could try Wikipedia’s summary:
* 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
Um, you just pointed out the problem in the first line. Is it really that difficult to understand?
“Each house shall be the arbiter of it’s own rules”.
If the house wants to call a resolution a bill they can.
The moment to debate that was when it hit the floor.
As the Parliamentarian didn’t object and no point of order was sustained, that was it.
Not if it violates the Constitution, you moron.
Might I suggest that “dn, you ignorant slut”, said in the voice of Dan Aykroyd, as an alternative to “moron”. Just to spice things up a little.
The first line indicates that it originated as a House bill. That’s all the Constitution requires. The Constitution does not require that bills not be amended after passage in the House, in fact it explicitly states that the “Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills”. Nor does the Constitution anywhere state that those amendments can only modify a limited fraction of a bill, or that a bill can not be renamed and aimed at a completely unrelated issue after initial passage.
The plain text of the Constitution offers absolutely no reason to doubt the constitutionality of the PPACA on origination grounds.
The meta-irony of this challenge is that the Origination Clause can be traced to conflicts in Europe (including the English Civil War) where the monarch and/or nobility imposed onerous taxes to pay for foreign wars. That led to the English practice of having “money bills” originate in the lower, more representative legislative house, to better protect the people from excessive taxation. That English practice inspired the Origination Clause of our Constitution.
These days war appropriations are among the least controversial bills in Congress. And while the Senate was passing the PPACA, the House was passing the Affordable Health Care for America Act, its own take on health care reform, which would have levied higher taxes than the PPACA. Whatever else you can say about it, this wasn’t a case where the people needed the House to protect it from the Senate’s taxing ways — if the House had its way, the taxes would have been even higher.
You can make anything sound plausible when you make sweeping generalizations.
One of the proposals in the House was to allow commerce across state lines. That would have significantly reduced the prices. Another would have been to make it more portable so you weren’t stuck without care when you left your job. That would have made it cheaper, too.
Such practicalities are lost on democrats.
Maybe a bunch of people in silly costumes can occupy the Mall. Perhaps if they had
Teabags hanging from their hats, they could force the gears to grind to a halt.
Is it better to wear a cool black, defecate on police cars and have multiple rapes and assaults like they did in New York during OWS?
Your disdain for the tea party tells me that you are an elitist douche who probably gets his income from the federal government. Are you afraid that your gravy train will disappear if we make government smaller?
I think that you have Douchenozzle pegged.
The Corporate GOP has much more disdain for the Teabaggers, judging by the results of the
primaries.
You’re right. But that doesn’t change anything regarding your views.