SCOTUS Joins Obama to Subvert the Constitution Over Obamacare AGAIN!

2
Share

dead-obamacare-300x209

The United States Supreme Court will not hear the case addressing the Constitution’s Origination Clause and by doing so, they are allowing Obamacare and the violation of the origination clause to stand. SCOTUS is assisting Barack Obama and the Obamacare Senate in subverting the Constitution.

“At issue was the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which requires all new taxes to start in the House, the chamber closest to the people. Obamacare is a massive tax bill, but it was launched in the Senate through a procedural ploy,” said Timothy Sandefur, the principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Senate took an appropriations bill that had nothing to do with Obamacare and rewrote it into a massive healthcare bill.

Pacific Legal is representing small-business owner Matt Sissel in this case.

“The Senate’s subversion of the constitutionally mandated rules for tax bills is a danger not just in this case but in future cases as well. By allowing Congress to use procedural tricks to evade the constitutional rules, the court has opened the door to Congress further evading democratic accountability for the laws it passes,” Sandefur said.

SCOTUS will not hear the case which called for the Obamacare law to be struck.

“It is very disappointing that the court has chosen not to hear this important case, because the justices were being asked to uphold and enforce an important constitutional protection for all taxpayers,” Sandefur said.

Obamacare adds nearly a trillion dollars in new taxes and all tax bills are supposed to originate in the House.

The principle behind the origination clause is ‘No Taxation Without Representation’. It was the moral justification for our War of Independence.” Our representation is in the House which had no say in this bill.

Mr. Obama originally said Obamacare was not a tax. When the argument on behalf of Obamacare in the Supreme Court appeared to be floundering, the federal government said it was both a tax and not a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion was that Obamacare was a revenue-raising tax and while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.

Justice Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax, not a penalty.

Justice Roberts also ruled Obamacare as a penalty to avoid the Tax Anti-Injunction Act for the purpose of ruling. The Act would have prevented the SCOTUS from ruling.

A House resolution adopted in 2013 confirmed that “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 did not originate in the House of Representatives.”

If it is a tax, it is unconstitutional since it hardly originated in the House.

On June 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s – Sissel’s – suit, holding (1) that the Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, (2) that the Origination Clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the Origination Clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the House of Representatives.

The latter is extremely deceitful. The bill they took was a bill to pay vets.

Since early November 2013, that decision was being appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In mid-November of 2013, Forty members [not 200] of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Trent Franks, filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of Sissel’s appeal. Also, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute, each filed an amicus brief.

The briefs discuss the Origination Clause’s history and purpose, and why the Obamacare tax on those who choose to not purchase a government-prescribed health insurance plan, violates that constitutional provision.

Read the original article from 2013 on the link.

Origination Clause Could Derail Obamacare in the Supreme Court

The Jurist explained the issues against hearing the case. It always gets back to Justice Roberts.

However compelling the argument on the merits of whether the ACA violates the Origination Clause of Article 7, section 1, though, the court must first decide whether to take up the case on certiorari. Here, there are two problems, realistically speaking. One is that there is no clear and present split in the circuits on this question, as the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed this claim for want of standing, and the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit’s panel held [PDF] that the overriding purpose of the law was not to raise revenue but rather to provide health insurance. Even though four judges of the DC Circuit, in dissenting from the denial for a rehearing en banc, would have preferred a different rationale for ruling against the challenge, namely that the Senate can amend revenue bills originating in the House, no judge was saying that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause.

The other reason it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant cert has to do with the rule of five. Five votes would be needed in order to prevail on the merits at the US Supreme Court, although four votes would be sufficient to get cert. Given that Roberts has shown not just once but twice that he is willing to engage in creative statutory interpretation to save the Affordable Healthcare Act. He thus prevented a 5-4 court decision on partisan lines (Republican appointees versus Democratic appointees) that would strike down Obama’s signature achievement in office. So it seems unlikely that the four dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius would want to grant cert only to lose again on the merits. After all, just last term the court, with Roberts writing the majority decision, upheld the granting of subsidies through federal exchanges rather than the state-established exchanges that the law seemed to call for.

This ruling diminishes the role of the House in its constitutional authority to start revenue measures through Congress. They’ve abandoned that role time and again anyway and have allowed Obama to run roughshod over the Constitution.

 

Share

2 COMMENTS

  1. You do understand the illogic of saying the Supreme Court is subverting the Constitution by deciding a case a certain way or by not deciding a case at all, correct?

    “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court…” and “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

    Wisely or not, the Constitution defines the Court’s role as defining the Constitution’s meaning via this apparatus. By definition, the Court cannot subvert the Constitution so long as it is using only its power as described.

Comments are closed.