Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scalia is a Scoundrel
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 41 of 108 (762994)
07-19-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2015 4:19 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
The House of Representatives is the only goverment body that has the authority to start a bill that levy taxes.
[...]
So the bill that was passed was a bill that started in the Senate and included a tax which makes the bill an unconstitutional bill.
It's common for the House to pass a bill of some sort, send it to the Senate, which then amends it to remove all the original language and add their desired language to the bill. Easy-peasy, constitutional as all get-out. Happens all the time, nobody complains. {ABE} Of course it then has to go to confernce. {ABE}
Such was the case with the ACA, which originated in the House as HR 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 11:54 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 46 of 108 (763005)
07-19-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 11:43 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
If the bill originated in the senate, it is unconstitutional because of the revenue raising "penalty" was part of the bill.
Yes, and as I pointed out the bill originated in the House and is therefore constitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 11:43 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:48 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 48 of 108 (763007)
07-19-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2015 12:03 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
He's confused; if te mandate is not there the ACA is toast because only sick people will sign up for insurance (no pre-existing conditions, remember).
of course it's not quite that bad but it will skew the distribution far towards the elderly and ill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2015 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 50 of 108 (763009)
07-19-2015 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 12:46 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
So the senate or the president or the boy scouts can write revenue raising bills if SCOTUS says its constitutional?
Perhaps, although the question has not arisen. Seems unlikely.
But you are missing the fact that the ACA originated in the House. "Unconstitutional because it stared in the Senate" is false and SCOTUS has not been asked to rule on that. If the Republicans thought they had a chance of killing it by suing on "started in the Senate" grounds they'd lose at the first level and it'd never get to the Supremes. That's why they haven't tried it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:46 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:43 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 51 of 108 (763010)
07-19-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 12:48 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia (see under Legislative History).
The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare:
quote:
Well, there are a few problems. The PLF press release emphasizes the first part of the Origination Clause but not the last part, which says that "the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." That language is the very reason why the Senate uses shell bills. In fact, the Senate has used shell bills on a number of occasions for major tax legislation. An example is the 1986 tax act, signed by Ronald Reagan.
The House has the power to enforce the Origination Clause if it wants to. If the House doesn't like what the Senate has done, it can return a bill to the Senate with a "blue slip" -- a memorandum that was traditionally printed on blue paper -- to indicate to the Senate that it thinks that the Senate has violated the Origination Clause. Or it can simply refuse to take up the Senate bill. The health care bill was not blue-slipped; the House leadership raised no objections.
...
But the PLF has to prove more than this to win its case. It has to show that the Senate can't amend a House bill that raises revenue and substitute a different bill on a different subject. The Supreme Court's cases, however, say that the Senate can do precisely that.
In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. in 1911, the Senate took a House tariff bill with an inheritance tax, jettisoned the inheritance tax, and substituted the nation's first corporate income tax. The Court said that was perfectly fine: "The bill having properly originated in the House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in this case. The amendment was germane to the subject-matter of the bill, and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose." The Court didn't explain why the addition of a corporate income tax was germane to a tariff bill or to an inheritance tax, other than the fact that all three were provisions "for raising Revenue" under the meaning of the Constitution.
But it went nowhere. They lost, appealed, lost to a three judge panel, appealed for an en banc hearing which was denied.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 12:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 3:32 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 59 of 108 (763026)
07-19-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
07-19-2015 3:32 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
It wasn't bait and switch. There was no plot to hijack that particular bill. They just looked for a convenient bill already filed that wasn't going anywhere and replaced its contents with the Air.
This is SOP and common.
Since the bill was not the same as what the House passed, the House could have done any of several things to block it and force a conference or new House vote.
They did not.
That's how the system works.
This is not at all unusual. It's been used by both sides for well over a century. It is in accordance with the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 07-19-2015 3:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 91 of 108 (763087)
07-20-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
07-20-2015 2:06 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
No part of the Constitution repeals the first part of that section, and no part repeals the rest of it which says:
quote:
but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
You don't get to ignore that part of the constitution just because you don't like it.
The ACA started in the house, passed, was amended by the Senate per that article, passed, and the House (as is common) chose to let it go as it was.
Perfectly constitutional.
{ABE}
You say they can't insist.
Of course they can. They can insist that the amended bill be re-presented for a House vote, or a conference committee resolve the differences.
They chose not to.
{ABE 2}
Now please explain what the word 'ALL BILLS' mean if it does not mean 'ALL BILLS'.
It means "ALL BILLS". What does "the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:58 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(4)
Message 94 of 108 (763090)
07-20-2015 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ICANT
07-20-2015 2:43 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
The Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) originated in the Senate.
H.R. means House of Representatives. Any bill labeled HR started in the House of Representatives.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act House bill", HR 3962 originated in the House.
Harry Reid could not get enough support in the Senate to pass the House bill HR 3962.
Cool. So what?
Nancy Pelosi having a democratic majority in the House mustered enough votes to pass the Senate Bill H.R. 3590.
So the Senate Bill H.R. 3590 is the one that became law.
Yup. All Constitutional. Except it's the Senate version of HR 3590, which by definition did not originate in the Senate.
So how do you determine the bill H.R. 3590 originated in the House?
Easy-peasy. It was named:
H.R. 3590. A bill that originated in the Senate would be S. 3590.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:43 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by herebedragons, posted 07-20-2015 8:57 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 95 of 108 (763091)
07-20-2015 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
07-20-2015 2:58 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
HR 3962 was started in the House.
Yes.
H.R. 3590 was started in the Senate.
No. H.R. 3590 as passed by the House was amended in the Senate, as explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Details matter, especially in law. Saying that H.R. 3590 started in the Senate is flat-out false: the name itself tells you that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2015 2:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024