House Members File Brief Backing “Origination Clause” Court Challenge to Obamacare

ObamacareTrainWreck (1)

Pacific Legal Foundation‘s legal challenge to Obamacare received important backing in the form of an amicus brief filed by Congressman Trent Franks, R-Arizona, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, joined by several dozen other members of the House. The amicus brief was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in PLF’s case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. “We are grateful for this powerful support from Congressman Franks, a leading authority on the Constitution, and from many other key lawmakers,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. “This support from members of the House is especially significant because PLF’s lawsuit defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people. We argue that Obamacare was enacted in a way that deprived the House of its authority to ‘originate’ new taxation. By extension, taxpayers were deprived of a core constitutional protection against reckless and oppressive use the federal taxing power.” In addition to Representative Franks, House members who have joined the brief as amici in support of PLF’s Obamacare challenge include: Michele Bachmann (MN); Joe Barton (TX); Kerry L. Bentivolio (MI); Marsha Blackburn (TN); Jim Bridenstine (OK); Mo Brooks (AL); K. Michael Conaway (TX); Steve Chabot (OH); Jeff Duncan (SC); John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN); John Fleming (LA); Bob Gibbs (OH); Louie Gohmert (TX); Andy Harris (MD); Tim Huelskamp (KS); Walter B. Jones, Jr. (NC); Steve King (IA); Doug Lamborn (CO); Doug LaMalfa (CA); Bob Latta (OH); Thomas Massie (KY); Mark Meadows (NC); Randy Neugebauer (TX); Steve Pearce (NM); Robert Pittenger (NC); Trey Radel (FL); David P. Roe (TN); Todd Rokita (IN); Matt Salmon (AZ); Mark Sanford (SC); David Schweikert (AZ); Marlin A. Stutzman (IN); Lee Terry (NE); Tim Walberg (MI); Randy K. Weber, Sr. (TX), Brad R. Wenstrup (OH); Lynn A. Westmoreland (GA); Rob Wittman (VA); and Ted S. Yoho (FL).

Obamacare: A massive tax bill that started on the wrong side of the Capitol Building

PLF’s challenge focuses on the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy a federally prescribed health insurance plan or pay a penalty to the federal government — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court identified as a “tax” in its 2012 ruling on Obamacare. Because Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax — and, indeed, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxation, in all — the law should have been initiated in the House, where Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says new taxes must “originate,” in order to keep the taxing power close to the people. However, in defiance of this constitutional requirement, Majority Leader Harry Reid launched the law in the Senate, by taking an entirely unrelated House bill on housing for veterans, stripping it, and inserting the language that became Obamacare.

Obamacare’s fiascos aren’t new: They started with the violation of the Origination Clause

“The current attempts to roll out Obamacare are frankly a fiasco,” said Beard. “These chaotic problems are symbolic of how, from the first, this law was foisted on the American people in a rushed and arbitrary way that ignored the careful and considered process laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution’s requirement that new taxes must start in the House is not a dusty formality. It’s an important safeguard for taxpayers, and for care and deliberation in the enactment of new taxes. Because this mandate was violated so flagrantly with Obamacare, and because the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare’s structure, our suit argues that the entire law must be struck down.”
  • Linda Galli

    Please SCOTUS, do your job and strike this law down. It is un-constitutional!

  • scott allman

    justice roberts handed them this on a silver platter and everyone jumped all over him like he had upheld this crap. when he declared it a tax he pointed it right back to the house, they finally woke up

    • Vickie Catara

      I’m glad they finally took this step but what the heck took them so long??!!??

      • terry1956

        Well Roberts should have said since it was a tax it had to start in the house but he did not say that then.
        On the other hand if they were threating members of his family and he knew the threat would pass, then he may have played the democrats.

        • scott allman

          if roberts would have directed it that way he would have been wrong. the judicial does not dictate that way, and shouldn’t. when he declared that it was a tax. he was doing his job. when the demonrats got all excited like they just won the damned superbowl, showed just how stupid they have become. but it still should never have taken this long for the house to wake up. judge napolitano said this the day roberts ruling came out

  • lostinspace9

    You have the entire Tea Party behind you. Let’s hope some of the gop will stand with you when going to the courts to fight this devastating agenda.

  • vietnamvet1971

    I hope the case succeeds or this Evil NON- Healthcare but a new TAX system FAILS, CRASH & BURN O’Bummercare.

  • Peggy

    So, this goes before the court when? Let’s go people get behind this and do away with it now.

  • al003

    When is a group of our Reps in Congress going to take the F and F case into the International Court and push for prosecution of Obama and his thugs for the International Crime of walking 2400 weapons into Mexico and selling them to a criminal organization, the Drug Cartel…..
    This is against an International Law of Nations…..
    Wake up, we have many ways to prosecute this fraud in our White House…. by now we should have impeached him some 15 times. We need the House of Reps to do their job, their job is to impeach those who do not follow the laws of the Nation and the Constitution…..
    Get to work and do you job — Impeach the thieves!!

  • Debra Barker

    I agree Obama needs to be impeached but are you familiar with HOW that takes place?
    The Impeachment Process in the House of Representative

    The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do…

    The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.

    Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.

    The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.

    Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be “impeached.” However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.

    In the Senate

    The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

    The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

    A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as “prosecutors.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

    The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

    The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.

    The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

    The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

    Impeachable Offenses

    Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Let’s say that the House did file articles of impeachment against the current POTUS, do you really think that this Senate would vote to convict and remove him from office?

  • terry1956

    Could this be what Roberts was hoping for in calling it a tax?
    Thank about this if the individual mandate is a tax then the employer mandate is also, plus add in all the taxes that the bill spells out then add all those they call fines into the tax slot.
    Just in case it doesn’t work help spread the word about the most important 700 plus year veto authority in common law.
    juryduty.org
    jurybox.com

  • terry1956

    juryduty.org
    jurybox.org