Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






A challenge, identified by BasicsProject.org at the laws genesis, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Lawsuit Over Healthcare
'Tax' Could Kill Obamacare

The Washington Times
"Obamacare" looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal healthcare law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation's attorneys had their "aha" moment.

"The court there quite explicitly says, 'This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,'" foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the healthcare act. "Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause."

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and "has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis."

The US District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department's motion "any day now," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn't the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a "shell bill" may be inelegant, but it's not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

"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," said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. "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 precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable."

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill's mission.

The Affordable Care Act's central purpose is to "improve the nation's healthcare system," and it fulfills that goal "through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue," said the government brief.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. "What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?" he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, "[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act."

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit "may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it."

"And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind -- again," Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven't seen the last of lawsuits against Obamacare.

"The Supreme Court's ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as Obamacare litigation is concerned," Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. "The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found."

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 03/31/2013

Editor's Note: We find this turn of events welcomed but stunning...We at BasicsProject.org have been saying from the very beginning that the law was unconstitutional based on the fact that it raises revenue and that it originated in the Senate. Yet, all of the inside-the-beltway Conservative powerbrokers ignored the declaration. All of the Conservative Washington think tanks ignored the declaration. All of the know-it-all inside the beltway Conservative pundits ignored the declaration...All of this pain -- pain we are all feeling because of this "law" could have been avoided if the "big shots" in politics, policy and media would have been open to listening to the little guy...but they didn't. They failed you; they failed us; the failed the nation...Yet, they still make millions of dollars through your contributions while we beg for a few scraps each year to operate on a shoe-string budget while being proven correct on every issue we approach. So, why are you donating to everyone else but the people who trumpet the truth years before the ones you support? Maybe you should make a small tax-deductible donation today!...Lord knows you can't rely on the "big guys" to provide the truth!...








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server