START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Obamacare's Unconstitutional Origins
11 months ago

Of all the fraud perpetrated in the passage of Obamacare — and the fraud has been epic — the lowest is President Obama’s latest talking point that the Supreme Court has endorsed socialized medicine as constitutional. To the contrary, the justices held the “Affordable” Care Act unconstitutional as Obama presented it to the American people: namely, as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

To sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans that Obamacare was not. And it is here that our recent debate over the Constitution’s Origination Clause — the debate in which Matt Franck, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mark Steyn, and yours truly have probed the historical boundaries of the power of the purse” reposed by the Framers in the House of Representatives — descends from the airy realm of abstraction and homes in on a concrete violation of law.

 

It is not just that the intensely unpopular Obamacare was unconstitutional as fraudulently portrayed by the president and congressional Democrats who strong-armed and pot-sweetened its way to passage. It is that Obamacare is unconstitutional as rewritten by Roberts. It is a violation of the Origination Clause — not only as I have expansively construed it, but even under Matt’s narrow interpretation of the Clause.

 

It is worth pausing here briefly to rehearse an argument often made in these pages before the Supreme Court ruling two summers ago. The justices’ resolution, whatever it was to be, would in no way be an endorsement of Obamacare; it would merely reflect the fact that our Constitution, designed for a free people, permits all manner of foolishness. “Constitutional” does not necessarily mean “good.” What Obamacare always needed was a political reversal in Congress. Thus, it was unwise for Republicans to become passive while hoping the justices would do their heavy lifting for them — both because it was unlikely that this Supreme Court would invalidate Obamacare and because a ruling upholding it would inevitably be used by the most demagogic administration in history as a judicial stamp of approval for socialized medicine.



This post was modified from its original form on 06 Oct, 3:40
11 months ago

Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.

Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

 

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.

 

If you’ve followed our recent debate, you know I’ve argued that the continuing resolution (CR) — the legislation at issue in the current congressional impasse that has partially shut down the government – violates the Origination Clause. The Senate presumed to add Obamacare spending to a House CR bill. I contend that the Origination Clause means that not only tax bills but government spending bills must originate in the House because the Clause was intended to vest the House with control over the power of the purse. Matt disagrees.

 

Our dispute over Obamacare spending in the 2013 CR, however, has no bearing on the Origination Clause analysis of the 2010 Obamacare law itself. The Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has held, was a straightforward tax. No theorizing about spending is necessary. Everyone agrees that tax-raising measures must originate in the House.

Obamacare originated in the Senate.



This post was modified from its original form on 06 Oct, 3:41
11 months ago

It was introduced in Congress in 2009 by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who called it the “Senate health care bill” (a description still touted long afterwards on Reid’s website). Employing the chicanery that marked the legislation through and through, the Democrat-controlled Senate turned its 3,000-page mega-proposal into a Senate amendment. The Senate attached its amendment to a nondescript, uncontroversial House bill (the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009) that had unanimously passed (416–0) in the lower chamber.

 

Thanks to the Supreme Court, it is now undeniable that Obamacare was tax legislation. It was also, by its own proclamation, a bill for raising revenue. Democrats maintained that the Senate proposal would reduce the federal budget deficit by $130 billion. More to the point, the bill contained 17 explicit “Revenue Provisions” — none of which was remotely related to the House bill to which the Senate proposal was attached.

 

Therefore, Obamacare is revenue-raising tax legislation, originated in the Senate in violation of the Constitution.

 

This has the Obama administration and its Justice Department scrambling. House conservatives, led by Representative Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), are pushing an Origination Clause challenge in the federal courts.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-mccarthy



This post was modified from its original form on 06 Oct, 3:43
11 months ago

Obamacare:    building block, the foundation on which to build socialism in America....

11 months ago

Diane, this is a wonderfully well-timed article as it gives us just what we need to argue Obamacare with the liberals.  The Supreme Court made it ruling and if the Democrats and Obama can't "fix this part" they are indeed legislating an unconstitutional law as if any part is unconstitutional it means that all is until that which is brought back into agreement with the Constitution is repaired.  I don't see how you can think otherwise.

Thank you, I now have the tools to present to a few that I have had some real debate taking place over Obamacare.  And these are not liberals on Care2, they are hopeless.  These are truly people that would be willing to listen and want the truth which a lot of liberals and even some Republicans that have held out on Obamacare are willing to do, listen to the full argument and accept that it is possible Obamacare is wrong.  These are mature individuals that I have found so many radical Care2 liberals are not.  That is not to say that there are not a lot of mature liberal-leaning people on Care 2 that are also looking for the full truth on these issues.  And I appreciate that they sit back, read and are open to change of opinion when they weigh the facts.  That is all we ask, isn't it?  We don't expect them to forsake the Democratic Party, just that they make their decisions based on all the facts truthfully submitted to them which the MSM and the President and most Democrats in Congress are not doing.  They also deserve better from their elected Party members. 

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.