Does Obamacare violate Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
In its landmark decision where Justice Roberts took it upon himself to call Obamacare a "tax" instead of a "fine" upholding Obamacare, he ruled that the money was a revenue raising tool and not a penalty so as such Congress was in its authority to impose it upon a country that did not desire it.

This brings up an interesting question. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution clearly states that ALL revenue raising bills must ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives. Obamacare originated in the US Senate.

Since reading the US Constitution is an aversion to many leftists on this board, I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting the relevant clause for their perusal

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.


Therefore in claiming that Obamacare was Constitutional did Chief Roberts make it unconstitutional.

Discuss
 
No need for in-depth analyses. Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act originated in the House.
 
whats funny is watching the statists (read that as democrats/progressives and republicans/conservatives) declare the courts as the final arbiter and their decisions as sacrosanct when it's something they agree with, but turn a complete 180 and declare the courts incompetent on things they disagree with.
 
I Love America said:
Incorrect the bill that was ultimately passed originated in the US Senate. Don't rewrite history
Click to expand...

perhaps most of the text that passed was originated in the senate, but that text was cut and pasted into the house bill and then passed... a completely legitimate and often used legislative tactic. sorry.
 
isn't it kind of pointless and useless to try to invalidate any law based on constitutional technicalities that the governments at all levels have ignored for decades anyway??????
 
President Obama's unbelievably limited gesture towards joining the modern world is unlikely to be against your archaic Constitution, but if it is, ditch the antiquated nonsense and grow up.
 
iolo said:
President Obama's unbelievably limited gesture towards joining the modern world is unlikely to be against your archaic Constitution, but if it is, ditch the antiquated nonsense and grow up.
Click to expand...
by antiquated nonsense, you mean freedom, liberty, and restricted government? is a modern constitution that has despotism, tyranny, and subjugation more to your liking then?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
by antiquated nonsense, you mean freedom, liberty, and restricted government? is a modern constitution that has despotism, tyranny, and subjugation more to your liking then?
Click to expand...

No, I mean the pretence of all those things by a totally repressed, brainwashed lot of serfs, who believe 'freedom' is having the means to murder people, since you ask. I prefer democratic socialism.
 
iolo said:
No, I mean the pretence of all those things by a totally repressed, brainwashed lot of serfs, who believe 'freedom' is having the means to murder people, since you ask. I prefer democratic socialism.
Click to expand...
i'm not aware of any notion, written or otherwise, where the framers of the constitution considered it 'freedom' to murder people. would you be kind enough to show us where that is at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top