Blog powered by Typepad

« The Bank Holiday Rumble: 1.4.13 | Main | Humbuggery is alive and well in the NUM »

Tuesday, 02 April 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"... but the point is that the bill was raised in the Senate and under the constitution tax-raising measures may only be originated in the House."

Uhm David?

Hopefully you'll simply bring yourself to admit "the possibility" (thus keeping me from having to hit the archives) that I was, er, Correctemundo, when - just following Justice Roberts' ruling I commented on your analysis to the effect that, ... well that which ITHM has now parroted!

(Still. It being a rainy-foggy day in Arkansas, it might make for some semblace of sunshine to muck around in the D&N archives.)

Well. That one was too easy. Not much for sunny days outta rainy days.

http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2012/06/scotus-throws-the-ball-back-where-it-belongs-to-the-people.html#comments

JK, Er didn't (well they'll claim it anyway) the bill originally .... originate in the House as something entirely different and then the Senate sort of .. 'Amend' it (read: rewrite it completely)?

As to a member of SCOTUS being "crafty", I suspect it was more 'kicking it down the road' than anything else (forward thinking is, by now, completely bred out of the political/judicial gene pool).

I suspect that the only way O'care will ever seriously face removal is when he's out of office (or there'll just be continuous reinvention/appeals/new votes until they get the answer you should have given them when they first asked, stop being so dumb - a la EU). By then, of course, the damage will be done, the faceless bureaucrats will have a taste for the new money/power, doctors/providers will have retired, insurers will have bumped prices (what? you expect they'll ever go down?!? naif).

To use a phrase from characters I have entirely too much in common with (Sheldon and Leonard):

You're "an inclined plane on a helical axis"

(still it is nice to see what a significant proportion of the US public actually understands that things have to be paid for - unlike here where massive tax at source fails utterly to be understood to negate the whole 'free health care' thing, let alone the maxims 'you get what you pay for' and 'all bureaucrats are money grubbing, parasitic, hypocritical, lying incompetents who couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery/orgy in a whorehouse/poor urine out of a boot even with instructions on the heel' - OK so I made that last one up, but it's still true)

I fear, David, that you are overlooking The First Principle of American Politics, to wit that the Constitution is used mainly for decoration; when it gets in the way of something important it is simply ignored. This principle was first established by that rogue Jefferson, and has flourished these two hundred years; it's too late to change it now.

Indeed, Gentlemen, perhaps my post was insufficiently clear - but then, I did provide the original link - in stating that 'a bill' was begun in the House which was not a tax-raising measure but later the 'Obamarites' simply rode in on it to the Senate where they proceeded to eviscerate it and then stuff it with what Justice Roberts later ruled was a tax-raising measure. Such fun!

I have just re-read the link back to the very wise and elegant words of, er, me, actually kindly provided by JK. No-one then, certainly not me, picked up that Roberts's ruling that it was a tax bill meant that it could be challenged later for exactly the reason put forward today - tax bills may not be proposed in the Senate. How exactly they will wriggle out of it I do not know but wriggle they will!

...No-one then, certainly not me, picked up that Roberts's ruling that it was a tax bill..."

Like a snort of smooth Tennessee whiskey - an oxymoron of course - make that Glendeveron ... thankee kindly Sir DM! our Host (as usual) ignores as convenient - ya'll need to run him for the local council!

Yes Able, the 'legislation' did get it's (meager) start in the House but was quickly taken over by "The Experts."

A "Blast From the Past" (snippet David. Just try finding it in your own archives!)

Now I'm certainly no lawyer type (heh - if I were, David by now would've engaged his beautiful, helpful blogger team from California for help banning me - despite his effort) but even I being no lawyer, could see where Verrilli however inadvertently laid a clever trap allowing Esquires Clement and Carvin to "help" him make his case.

Hank? I'll look to see if I can re-locate a link to the pdf but here're some of the notes I sent on to a blogger here in the States calling attention to the Esquires' cock-ups mostly.

""" Pivot made by SG page 19. --- Sotomayor to SG line 8 page 23 response line 14. --- BIG PIVOT SG page 40, 41, onto page 45. --- Top of page 54 Res. Clement makes point for SG. Again on 59. *Attention to lines 7 - 19 page 75. --- Carvin [behalf Res] steps in dogshit page 99 lines 13-24 again to page 101. --- SG ceases all pretense on Commerce Clause in rebuttal page 108. --- Dogshit hits fan June 2012. ""..."

Then I followed up with the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

Then David, ol' JK tried poking your nose into a single simple line in Article One - to which you kept arguing (in typical inimitable D&N fashion) "No dice JK, no way!"

To which I now reply - see this post penned,er, typed, April 2, 2013!

Could be missing something, somewhere. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) to get around the `originate` requirement. The bill H.R. 3590, which initially titled "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" originated in the House and was introduced and sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel on September 17, 2009.

Yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy many times in the past. In fact, the conservative opinion specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.
Quote: “For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, (the Stamp Act of 1765) and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.”

Perhaps the APPACA opponents could sue claiming that “shell bills” in tax matters should be deemed unconstitutional because they violate the spirit of Article I, section 7, seriously though, how likely is Justice Roberts to say, “You’re right, I totally spaced on the origination clause in my earlier landmark ruling. Decision overturned”?

All may not be lost, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.

Ups?

Could be missing something, somewhere.

See Tuesday, 02 April 2013 at 18:48 - "Yes Able, the 'legislation' did get it's (meager) start in the House but was quickly taken over by "The Experts."

Not saying I'm not one prone to, when unable to dazzle with my (obvious) brilliance, I'm sometimes prone toward baffling with bullshit.

The comments to this entry are closed.