A new case is winding its way through the court system which we predict will hit the Supreme Court. More of the details are covered in the following post, however to be succinct, the case is that all tax bills must start in the House (under the Constitution) which the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did not. Secondly, the fifth Amendment explicitly says that no person can be forced to purchase something from another person, the so-called "takings" clause.
A quick review of the Constitution tells us that this case has a better than average chance of succeeding. First of all it is based on solid law that has many precedents. Secondly unless the Justices are willing to ignore previous rulings, they will have to rule ACA unconstitutional.
Saying all that, we saw how Chief Justice Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel over this issue before declaring that the premiums were really a tax. This was after the writers of the bill said it was not. Will he untwists himself and decides that he was wrong and that it really was not a tax and therefore avoids the question in front of the Court? Will he say that the Fifth Amendment did not perceive something so necessary as health insurance therefore avoiding the "takings" issue. Or will he find his sanity and vote with the majority ruling this law unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, we believe he will do the prior. If he does, we will have un-controvertible proof that he has sold out. He cannot, legally or logically, reverse his opinion without causing doubt about his independence. We hope for the Court and for the Justice that we are 100% wrong.
Conservative Tom
A quick review of the Constitution tells us that this case has a better than average chance of succeeding. First of all it is based on solid law that has many precedents. Secondly unless the Justices are willing to ignore previous rulings, they will have to rule ACA unconstitutional.
Saying all that, we saw how Chief Justice Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel over this issue before declaring that the premiums were really a tax. This was after the writers of the bill said it was not. Will he untwists himself and decides that he was wrong and that it really was not a tax and therefore avoids the question in front of the Court? Will he say that the Fifth Amendment did not perceive something so necessary as health insurance therefore avoiding the "takings" issue. Or will he find his sanity and vote with the majority ruling this law unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, we believe he will do the prior. If he does, we will have un-controvertible proof that he has sold out. He cannot, legally or logically, reverse his opinion without causing doubt about his independence. We hope for the Court and for the Justice that we are 100% wrong.
Conservative Tom
New Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in Texas
MAY 14, 2013
TUCSON, Ariz., May 10, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being released by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS):
This week, a new lawsuit raising issues not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or "ObamaCare") was filed by Texas physician Steve F. Hotze , M.D., and his business. The case is Hotze v. Sebelius, 4:13-cv-01318 (S.D. Texas).
In its unexpected ruling that the insurance mandates in ObamaCare are taxes, the Court opened the door for issues that it could not address or resolve because neither party in NFIB brought them up. Most importantly, all revenue-raising bills must originate in the House of Representatives, as expressly required by the Origination Clause in Article 1, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution. PPACA originated in the Senate, and is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety.
Hotze challenges both the individual mandate and the application of ObamaCare to mid-size companies like the one he founded. He notes that ObamaCare will cause millions to lose their health insurance and their ability to access their own physician, despite promises by Democrats to the contrary when they passed the bill.
Moreover, businesses are reducing hours and paychecks to put their employees under the 30-hour-per-week threshold for mandatory insurance. The entire American workforce is at risk of being forced into temporary or part-time work, and lower pay, because of the effect of ObamaCare on employers.
Even the architects of the bill are admitting that implementation is proving to be a "train wreck."
"Federal courts can avert the disastrous train wreck of ObamaCare by simply applying the Origination Clause to invalidate it," stated Andrew Schlafly , the attorney who filed this lawsuit and who also serves as the General Counsel to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). "Federal courts in Texas should enjoin the massive, unconstitutional distribution of money away from Texas that would result from application of ObamaCare."
Texas did not adopt the Medicaid expansion or set up a health insurance exchange, so ObamaCare amounts to little more than taking hundreds of billions of dollars away from this State.
The lawsuit also explains how ObamaCare violates the Fifth Amendment by compelling private citizens, Dr. Hotze and his business in this case, to pay money to another private entity, a government-approved insurance company. There is no precedent for government to take property from one citizen in order to transfer it directly to another. Many precedents prohibit such compelled transfers as a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case filed by AAPS in 2010 (AAPS v. Sebelius), now pending in the D.C. Circuit, also raises these issues. Any disagreement between venues on a legal issue increases the likelihood of Supreme Court review.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
Regarding our Roberts project, I want to get you on record that Obama has an interest in the Texas affirmative action case and the Voting Rights Act case that will be decided next month. Both of these cases have very significant importance for African Americans education and voting. Blacks are a key constituency of the Democratic Party, and these cases will hurt them. You can't tell me with a straight face that Obama has no interest in these cases. Indeed, I would not be surprised if he directs the DOJ to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in both of them.
ReplyDelete--David
David, I don't think that he cares one whit about Black people, the Affirmative action case or the Voting Rights act. He has what he always wanted, the Presidency and the rest of the black population can pound sand.
ReplyDeleteHe might "say" somethings or direct DOJ to take certain actions, but as far as getting personally involved, never gonna happen.
And before you ask for a bet, he has too many other problems to deal with now. He will need Justice Roberts for something more important than these rulings. Like invalidating any proposed impeachment filings!
Interestingly, David, you did not comment on the constitutionality of the case working its way through the courts which undoubtedly will end up at the Supreme court. It looks like a slam dunk to me, if we had a court that could read the Constitution!
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to get any data for our Roberts project, because you are always going to tell me Obama doesn't care about any Supreme Court cases (except impeachment or repeal of Obamacare). For the record, can you give me any other examples of hypothetical cases that you would accept for the Roberts project? I don't know any liberal who is not a strong supporter of affirmative action, or conservative who is not a strong opponent. I will be shocked if these two cases don't split 5-4 with Roberts voting with the conservatives.
ReplyDeleteAs for the case, the Congress Research Service states...
"The court’s understanding of the Origination Clause is therefore based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a
single, specific purpose. These principles are illustrated in two often cited cases. In Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, the Supreme Court held that an act to establish a national currency backed by United States bonds, that also imposed a fee on banks based on the average amount of notes in circulation, did not violate the clause because it was not a revenue bill. In this case, the
Court ruled that the primary purpose of the bill was to establish a national currency, and the fee on banks was incidental to that purpose."
Applying these two requirements to the ACA, I would say that ACA meets the second condition but not the first. That is, the ACA raises revenue but that is not the primary purpose of the law. Therefore, the ACA is not a "bill for raising revenue." Of course, you could interpret Article 1 the broader way by holding that any bill that raises any amount of revenue is a "revenue bill", but then you would have to hold that both the ACA and the House bill it amended were both revenue bills, since they both raised revenue.
--David