By Alden L. Benton
ObamaCare is being challenged in court once again. This time, however, the argument is different.
Last summer the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that the ObamaCare individual mandate was not a penalty, but a tax and as such was constitutional under Congressional authority to tax. ObamaCare is a tax, according to SCOTUS, because it requires a payment to the federal government from people who decide not to buy health insurance.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has filed an amendment to their existing suit against ObamaCare stating that, “this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills.”
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly states:
“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.”
Thanks to the treachery and deceit of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), that is not how things happened.
According to the PLF, ObamaCare, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),
“…was introduced in the upper chamber by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In a so-called “shelf bill” maneuver, Reid took a House-passed measure to help veterans buy homes, struck out all its language, and inserted the federal health care legislation that became known as the ACA, with its health insurance mandate and charge for people who choose not to comply. In fact, the ACA, as it was created in the Senate, included a dozen new taxes estimated to increase federal revenue by $486 billion by 2019.”
Harry Reid’s bait-and-switch power grab was a blatant violation of both the letter and the intent of the constitution.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities, and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Paul J. Beard II, Pacific Legal Foundation principal attorney.
“The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty,” Beard said.
The PLF says that because the tax on non-participation is central to the structure of ObamaCare, the entire law should be declared unconstitutional.
According to the PLF:
“In addition to its Origination Clause argument, PLF’s amended complaint asks the courts to recognize that the NFIB decision [National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012)] set a clear limit to federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8). Specifically, PLF seeks to clarify that a binding precedent was created by the five justices who held that Congress lacked Commerce Clause authority to order people to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.”
The PLF challenge to ObamaCare (Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) is pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
If the PLF suit makes it onto the Supreme Court calendar, the Court will have a second chance to uphold the Constitution and its limitations on government power by eliminating the abomination of ObamaCare.
Follow me on Twitter @AldenBenton, on Facebook, or
signup for a free email subscription or RSS feed.
©2012 Alden L. Benton/Independence Creek Enterprises
All Rights Reserved