The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice

[Blackhawk2001]

Actually I believe the relevant part of the Constitution you're speaking of is the Bills of Revenue which is Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which states



The relevant text

This is how the SCOTUS justified the individual mandate. A Bill of Revenue is also known as a tax. I'd be surprised if the appellate court can shoot this one down, although I'm curious how an appellate court can overturn a SCOTUS decision. Can you explain that process to me? Last I knew the SCOTUS was the highest court and no lower court can overturn a higher court's decision.

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the portions of a law based on the arguments brought before it. Since the fact that the ACA originated in the Senate was not part of the arguments, and it was ruled Constitutional based on the power of Congress to tax, it may be objected to on that basis. If you look at all the different ways plaintiffs have gone about trying to get abortion overturned or our Second Amendment rights restricted, you will see that one Supreme Court decision need not affect all of a law, just a part of it, as the recent SCOTUS decision which overturned parts of the Voting Rights law, I believe.

 

[Streak]

It was not introduced by the Senate, that would be Unconstitutional. It was, however, amended upon as part of another bill titled the "Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009" which was passed by the House on October 8th of 2009, sent to the Senate, which then renamed the act, by Amendment, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It was upon this vehicle that the tax was created.

This bill was passed by the Senate on December 24th of 2009, the House agreed to the Senate Amendment on March 21st of 2010. It was subsequently signed into law by President Obama on March 23rd of 2010.

History located here

Easy-read located here (see right hand column, Legislative History).

For your convenience I am quoting the "easy read" below:

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) byCharles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
  
  
  Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
  
  
  Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
  
  
  Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39)with amendment
  
  
  House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
  
  
  Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

 

[Streak]

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the portions of a law based on the arguments brought before it. Since the fact that the ACA originated in the Senate was not part of the arguments, and it was ruled Constitutional based on the power of Congress to tax, it may be objected to on that basis. If you look at all the different ways plaintiffs have gone about trying to get abortion overturned or our Second Amendment rights restricted, you will see that one Supreme Court decision need not affect all of a law, just a part of it, as the recent SCOTUS decision which overturned parts of the Voting Rights law, I believe.

That's incorrect. See my earlier post (I think above this one). The ACA originated as bill H.R. (House Resolution) 3590. It got several Amendments (including a name change) in the Senate. However the bill was introduced by the House which makes this a legal bill in terms of your view.

I realize how this can get confusing, but it's all a part of the fun process bills take.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That's incorrect. See my earlier post (I think above this one). The ACA originated as bill H.R. (House Resolution) 3590. It got several Amendments (including a name change) in the Senate. However the bill was introduced by the House which makes this a legal bill in terms of your view.

I realize how this can get confusing, but it's all a part of the fun process bills take.

The ACA did not originate in the House; it originated in the Senate. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but apparently some Constitutional scholars don't believe it was done in accordance with the Constitution and they are challenging it on that basis. I guess we'll just have to see how the case proceeds.

 

[GunsNstuff]

I assume those 9 people understand the law well enough to argue it. I do not want 9 people who all agree, I want 9 people who disagree and then can argue back and forth until there is an agreement.

Judges may have political agendas on other courts...however the SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment for the very reason that it invalidates any need to have political agendas. A liberal Justice could stop all over the Democrats with every vote for the rest of his/her life and nothing, short of murder, can be done about it.

This is why I don't believe in term limits for the highest court of the land...it'll become like elections and justices would be bought off. The way it works now is that the President nominates Justices as seats are opened up and the Senate confirms or denies that vote. That Justice sits forever on that bench so that he/she can't be bought off. There'd be nothing for him/her to gain politically.

The justices don't have to run for election and therefore dont' have to tailor their decisions to pander to constituents, but they absolutely have political agendas. They're people. People have political agendas.

You saying they understand the law is contradicted by them not agreeing on what the law means. They would all agree the ocean is wet because that is solid and concrete and factual. The law, if it were as understandable as the ocean being wet, would not have advocates on opposite sides of it.

Those 9 people understand the law no better than many of the rest of us. They are able to argue it no better than many of the rest of us and they are right and wrong just as all of us are. If SCOTUS says the ocean is NOT wet, it's still wet, but legally & temporarily, it's not legally wet.

 

[Streak]

It was not introduced by the Senate, that would be Unconstitutional. It was, however, amended upon as part of another bill titled the "Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009" which was passed by the House on October 8th of 2009, sent to the Senate, which then renamed the act, by Amendment, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It was upon this vehicle that the tax was created.

This bill was passed by the Senate on December 24th of 2009, the House agreed to the Senate Amendment on March 21st of 2010. It was subsequently signed into law by President Obama on March 23rd of 2010.

History located here

Easy-read located here (see right hand column, Legislative History).

For your convenience I am quoting the "easy read" below:

• Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) byCharles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
  
  
  Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
  
  
  Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
  
  
  Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39)with amendment
  
  
  House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
  
  
  Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

The ACA did not originate in the House; it originated in the Senate. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but apparently some Constitutional scholars don't believe it was done in accordance with the Constitution and they are challenging it on that basis. I guess we'll just have to see how the case proceeds.

Please see the above quote. I can't help you, if you don't understand our Constitutional processes clear enough. The ACA IS a gutted/reworked (aka Amended) House bill. The Senate holds the power to Amend (aka Change) any Bill of Revenue as per the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1.

That's why this bill was ruled legal in the eyes of the SCOTUS. That's why no one can charge that this bill originated in the Senate. To be honest it's a dirty trick, but it's a power held to the Senate and it could've been almost any bill that came from the House. That's the power of Amendments.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The justices don't have to run for election and therefore dont' have to tailor their decisions to pander to constituents, but they absolutely have political agendas. They're people. People have political agendas.

You saying they understand the law is contradicted by them not agreeing on what the law means. They would all agree the ocean is wet because that is solid and concrete and factual. The law, if it were as understandable as the ocean being wet, would not have advocates on opposite sides of it.

Those 9 people understand the law no better than many of the rest of us. They are able to argue it no better than many of the rest of us and they are right and wrong just as all of us are. If SCOTUS says the ocean is NOT wet, it's still wet, but legally & temporarily, it's not legally wet.

A perfect example of the "pi equals 3.14 exactly" class of legal argument; the SCOTUS accepted CO2 as a "polluting gas", when competing scientific evidence shows that it's not.

 

[steveh_131]

By whose view do you consider wrongness? Yours? Do you REALLY want that authority and responsibility, to be the ultimate say in what is/what is not Constitutional? Are you suggesting that those who understand our laws and were charged by Legislative AND Executive branches of government to pass judgement on laws are not qualified?

How about common sense?

Do you really think that the writers of the constitution, who revolted over a miniscule tax, wrote it with the intention of allowing this monumentally absurd federal over-reach into our personal lives and finances?

I don't think any rational person could make sense of that.

 

[Streak]

The justices don't have to run for election and therefore dont' have to tailor their decisions to pander to constituents, but they absolutely have political agendas. They're people. People have political agendas.

You saying they understand the law is contradicted by them not agreeing on what the law means. They would all agree the ocean is wet because that is solid and concrete and factual. The law, if it were as understandable as the ocean being wet, would not have advocates on opposite sides of it.

Those 9 people understand the law no better than many of the rest of us. They are able to argue it no better than many of the rest of us and they are right and wrong just as all of us are. If SCOTUS says the ocean is NOT wet, it's still wet, but legally & temporarily, it's not legally wet.

These 9 people have law degrees, generally have held prestigious benches, and have many years of experience in the art of law. I understand law enough to know that I certainly can't hold a candle to these guys. Are you lawyer? I'm not. No law degree here.

 

[steveh_131]

How about an analogy.

Theft is illegal. I carjack someone and take off with their car.

A corrupt judge dismisses the case. saying it wasn't illegal.

Was my act of carjacking illegal?

 

[Streak]

How about common sense?

Do you really think that the writers of the constitution, who revolted over a miniscule tax, wrote it with the intention of allowing this monumentally absurd federal over-reach into our personal lives and finances?

I don't think any rational person could make sense of that.

They revolted over several things. The miniscule tax had nothing to do with it. The fact that they had no representation (along with other grievances, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence)

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

A single tax had nothing to do with this. The colonies had no say in the King's court and that's what pissed them off.

 

[steveh_131]

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no corrupt supreme court there to affirm it, did it really fall??!1/?

 

[Streak]

How about an analogy.

Theft is illegal. I carjack someone and take off with their car.

A corrupt judge dismisses the case. saying it wasn't illegal.

Was my act of carjacking illegal?

What level of judge? If this is a corrupt judge an appellate court will overturn this. If there was another circumstance that made this not theft then they will not.

 

[steveh_131]

They revolted over several things. The miniscule tax had nothing to do with it. The fact that they had no representation (along with other grievances, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence)

A single tax had nothing to do with this. The colonies had no say in the King's court and that's what pissed them off.

Please forgive my hyperbole. The actual point was apparently lost on you.

 

[Streak]

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no corrupt supreme court there to affirm it, did it really fall??!1/?

Doesn't matter. It's not a legal issue. It's outside of their Jurisdiction.

 

[steveh_131]

What level of judge? If this is a corrupt judge an appellate court will overturn this. If there was another circumstance that made this not theft then they will not.

What if they are all corrupt, all the way up the chain?

Not illegal?

 

[steveh_131]

Doesn't matter. It's not a legal issue. It's outside of their Jurisdiction.

You REALLY struggle with hyperbole, don't you.

 

[Streak]

What if they are all corrupt, all the way up the chain?

Not illegal?

I'd challenge your perception of the law at that point. Do you have a specific case we can look at, because otherwise all we're talking is "what ifs" and to be honest those are pointless.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please forgive my hyperbole. The actual point was apparently lost on you.

I get your point, but your premise only works when the judge KNOWS that their ruling is wrong. If a judge is acting in good faith, then that changes things.

 

[steveh_131]

I'd challenge your perception of the law at that point. Do you have a specific case we can look at, because otherwise all we're talking is "what ifs" and to be honest those are pointless.

Afraid to answer the question?

If the supreme court decides what the constitution means, then the criminal judge, similarly, decides what the law means.

If he says it's not illegal, then it's not illegal. Even if I beat some old lady to death and take her car.

You can't have it both ways.