DaniMartExtras, Too


Posts Tagged ‘US Court of Appeals’

WTF: D.C. Circuit splits on Origination Clause in latest Obamacare challenge

Posted by Xaniel777 on August 8, 2015



FYI: I am neither Demo-crap or Repub-puck as I would not be able to handle the stench of myself

from being either one!
Consider me a “Constitutionalist”

Heres what one comment about this article had to say and it matches what I said when Harry Reid first pulled this crap –

Comment by – Bill Walker 12:18 PM PDT

“Although the original House bill was amended and its language replaced in the Senate, such Senate amendments are permissible under the Clause’s text and precedent.” This isn’t just a lie, it is a DAMN LIE. The original bill was not just amended. The whole damn thing was erased and replaced with Harry Reid and the Senate’s version of the ACA. The way this law was passed was despicable, from start to finish. And guess what… over 50% of the country still hates the damn law and wants it either replaced or repealed outright. To say anything else is a lie. But hey, that’s what people like this writer have been doing for years… Gotta cover for the Democrats.”

Bill Walker is someone who gets it!!

As another side note for your consideration: The only thing left of this House Bill when Reid gutted it, was the Original House Bill Number.

The original House Bill that was sent to the Senate and gutted by Reid had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE!!!

WHAT WAS AMENDED?  NOTHING was amended because there was nothing left of it.

It was completely erased as Bill Walker stated.

Reid then REPLACED the entire thing with the ACA and then forced a quick vote in the Demo-crap controlled Senate

and instead of sending it back to the House for a vote as he was suppose to do by Law,

he illegally kicked it to the President who signed it into law!

If this President had had any kind of Honor at all, he, himself, would have refused to sign it until the House had voted for it.

This President is as corrupt as Reid is!

So what the hell is this joke of a Judge, (Judge Kavanaugh), even talking about??

If what this idiot says were really true, then what is to keep every bill going to the Senate from the House from being completely gutted, replaced, quickly voted on

and to the President it goes to be illegally signed into law.

There would be no accountability and the House would never have any say as it would be bypassed on every issue, making them irrelevant.
(I know, I know, most say they and the Senate are already irrelevant, but that’s another rant for another day)

As such our form of government would collapse as it is pretty much doing now.

Maybe it’s time to stop playing this game and start arresting ALL these corrupt fools before it’s too late!!

“NUFF SAID “~Xaniel777]




August 7, 2015

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition for rehearing en banc in Sissel v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, another constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The plaintiffs allege the ACA violates the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a bill for raising revenue and did not originate in the House of Representatives. The Origination Clause in Article I, Section 7, provides “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.”

Last year, a three-judge panel rejected the challenge, concluding that although the ACA raises substantial revenue and the individual mandate was ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court as an exercise of the taxing power, the ACA was not properly considered a “Bill for raising Revenue” under the clause because any revenue-raising in the act is “incidental” to its primary purposes.

On review of a petition for rehearing en banc, the full D.C. Circuit was unanimous that the plaintiffs’ challenge must fail, but disagreed sharply on the rationale. Judge Kavanaugh, joined by Judges Henderson, Brown and Griffith, dissented from the denial of en banc on the grounds that the original three-judge panel erred in its Origination Clause challenge.  According to Kavanaugh, the ACA is a “Bill for raising Revenue,” but satisfied the Origination Clause because the bill formally originated in the House. (For what it’s worth, I suggested that this was the reason any such challenges would have a difficult time when commenting on another D.C. Circuit decision in a challenge involving the Origination Clause last year.)

Here is how Judge Kavanaugh’s 32-page dissent begins:

This case raises a serious constitutional question about the 2010 Affordable Care Act, one of the most consequential laws ever enacted by Congress. Did Congress’s enactment of the Act comport with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? The Origination Clause provides: “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.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 7, cl. 1. The Origination Clause therefore requires that bills for “raising Revenue” originate in the House of Representatives. Revenue bills may be amended in the Senate “as on other Bills,” but they must originate in the House. If the Affordable Care Act did not meet the requirements of the Origination Clause, then the Act – or at least revenue-raising provisions such as the individual mandate – must be invalidated.

In my view, the Affordable Care Act complied with the Origination Clause, but not for the reason articulated by the three-judge panel opinion. The panel opinion concluded that the Affordable Care Act was not a revenue-raising bill for purposes of the Origination Clause and therefore did not have to originate in the House. In my respectful view, that conclusion is untenable. The Affordable Care Act established new subsidies for the purchase of health insurance and expanded the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. Those new subsidies and expanded entitlements cost an enormous amount of money. So as not to increase the annual budget deficit and the overall national debt, the Act imposed numerous taxes to raise revenue. Lots of revenue. $473 billion in revenue over 10 years. It is difficult to say with a straight face that a bill raising $473 billion in revenue is not a “Bill for raising Revenue.”

The Affordable Care Act therefore was a revenue-raising bill subject to the Origination Clause. That said, the Act did in fact originate in the House, as required by the Clause. Although the original House bill was amended and its language replaced in the Senate, such Senate amendments are permissible under the Clause’s text and precedent.

So in concluding that the Affordable Care Act complied with the Origination Clause, the panel opinion reached the right bottom line, but relied on what I see as a faulty rationale. Does such a case still warrant en banc review? Oftentimes no, but here yes. The panel opinion sets a constitutional precedent that is too important to let linger and metastasize. Although no doubt viewed by some today as a trivial or anachronistic annoyance, the Origination Clause was an integral part of the Framers’ blueprint for protecting the people from excessive federal taxation. It is true that the Framers’ decision to grant the Senate a broad amendment power gave the Origination Clause less bite than it otherwise might have had. But the Clause nonetheless has been important historically and remains vital in the modern legislative process. By newly exempting a substantial swath of tax legislation from the Origination Clause, the panel opinion degrades the House’s origination authority in a way contrary to the Constitution’s text and history, and contrary to congressional practice. As a result, the panel opinion upsets the longstanding balance of power between the House and the Senate regarding the initiation of tax legislation. Therefore, I would grant rehearing en banc. In my respectful view, the en banc Court should vacate the panel opinion and rule for the Government on the ground that the Affordable Care Act originated in the House and thereby complied with the Origination Clause.





(Fair Use Notice):

This web site may contain 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 the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. 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 U.S.C. 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. A click on a hyper link is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this website. However, 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. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House. ~~~ Xaniel777

Mad Max The Road Warrior 1a



 ©2009 – 2015 DaniMartExtras,too


Posted in Alternative News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WTF: D.C. Circuit splits on Origination Clause in latest Obamacare challenge

%d bloggers like this: