Comments on: Okay. So, Obamacare is Funded with a “Tax”. Then, it Originated in the Wrong House…

By: Desire Even

Desire Even — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:15:01 +0000

Souls in the Waves…

Superior Early morning, I just stopped in to go to your website and thought I would say I loved myself….

By: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

Teresa in Fort Worth, TX — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:57:54 +0000

http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/managingyourmoney/archives/2010/03/tax_implication.html

(That includes the employer penalty, and lowers the individual penalty)

By: scorpio0679

scorpio0679 — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 05:17:24 +0000

Figure I won’t repeat what you just said. This is exactly what I was going to comment. It unfortunately did originate in the House.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:36:57 +0000

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:31:07 +0000

The House passed HR 3590.

The Senate amended it (gutted it, and inserted Obamacare, really) and passed it.

The House did their thing and passed the Senate amendments.

All the forms were obeyed. The problem is that the Constitution didn’t account for amendments changing the entire nature of a bill, such that a bill could originate in the House as an unrelated bill.

By: conservativecurmudgeon

conservativecurmudgeon — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:24:31 +0000

And, since we are now to believe everything thus labeled by Speaker Pelosi’s House are things to be trusted beyond reproach, they also called it “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, so, it stands to reason we have nothing to fear, and all of this angst is unwarranted;

—For we are all now protected, and everything will be affordable, correct?

And, historical analysis is now called “whining”, too, I see. I suppose, just like Chief Justice Roberts said, we must all stop getting so hung up on words and definitions. “Final Solution”, “Holocaust”. What’s the big dif, right?

History=Whining, Just like Penalty=Tax. I guess I understand.

By: runner12

runner12 — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:36:26 +0000

That is why I said yes and no . We all know this was a trick to get around the Constitutional fact that any bill dealing with revenue must originate in the House. Now that it has been deemed a “tax”, it calls into question the legitimacy of the practice of using a “shell bill.” Maybe even the Constitutionality of such a measure on a bill involving revenue.

I am no lawyer, but the door is still open on that grounds to mount another challenge. The problem, as the Hot Air piece pointed out, is that by the time it got to SC it may be repealed. Additionally, we would be relying on the CJ, which we all know how that went the first time. Still, I think it it could be a “nuclear option” if we had to use it.

By: acat

acat — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:18:28 +0000

to tell a co-equal branch that they’re no longer able to decide their own internal processes.

That seems .. not only pretty unlikely, but remarkably stupid .. like McDonalds telling Burger King how to prepare french fries.*

It’s not bloody likely, and it would cause all kinds of long-term problems, given the inherent institutional vanities at play.

Mew

* not that BK couldn’t use some help .. their fries are pathetic!

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:17:31 +0000

All your verbiage can’t get around those 6 characters.

Get OVER the whining. Still mad? Get to WORK.

By: conservativecurmudgeon

conservativecurmudgeon — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:10:20 +0000

The above scenario of the chronology, while being somewhat of a Readers Digest Condensed Version, is correct. It is also why Pelosi was fully prepared to embrace the Slaughter Rule, and was prepared to “deem” the senate version passed. while only voting for the supposed pasted-on amendments.

We all know what was going on here. I won’t play Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s game, and if we were doing pre-trial discovery, I think my accounting of events would be borne out.