XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: frauds@thinkprogress.com   
      
   A federal appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit that   
   sought to invalidate the president’s health-care reform law on   
   grounds that the massive piece of legislation did not originate   
   in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution.   
      
   A three-judge panel of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the   
   District of Columbia rejected the lawsuit filed on behalf of an   
   Iowa artist and part-time National Guardsman.   
      
   The artist, Matt Sissel, pays for medical expenses out of pocket   
   and does not want to be forced to purchase a required level of   
   health insurance or pay a tax to the government.   
      
   He challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,   
   charging, in part, that Congress followed improper procedure by   
   initiating the health-care law in the Senate rather than the   
   House.   
      
   The Constitution’s Origination Clause says: “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.”   
      
   The provision is intended to ensure that any effort by Congress   
   to raise money from the American people must first receive the   
   approval of those lawmakers closest to the people – and   
   presumably more receptive to the wishes and concerns of voters.   
      
   The ACA’s journey from debate to bill to law was somewhat   
   unusual. What would become the ACA was actually drafted in the   
   Senate. Senate Democrats then gutted a bill that passed the   
   House – offering tax credits to military veterans buying a first   
   home – jettisoning every provision of that measure. All that   
   remained was the designation – HR 3590.   
      
   Into that empty shell the Senate poured the full contents of   
   what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The   
   approved Senate version was then sent to the House for approval.   
      
   Sissel’s lawyers noted that in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts   
   upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate on the   
   grounds that it was enacted under Congress’s taxing authority.   
      
   They argued that if the ACA is a tax, it had to have been passed   
   by Congress in compliance with the Origination Clause.   
      
   In rejecting that argument, the appeals court panel said the ACA   
   is not subject to the terms of the Origination Clause because   
   the ACA is not a “bill for raising revenue.”   
      
   As such, the court said it had no reason to conduct a detailed   
   examination of how the ACA was passed in Congress.   
      
   In dismissing the lawsuit, the appeals court said the purpose of   
   the underlying bill was critical to determine whether the   
   Origination Clause would apply.   
      
   “After the Supreme Court decision [upholding the ACA], it is   
   beyond dispute that the paramount aim of the Affordable Care Act   
   is to increase the number of Americans covered by health   
   insurance and decrease the cost of health care, not to raise   
   revenue by means of the shared responsibility payment,” Judge   
   Judith Rogers wrote for the court.   
      
   Judge Rogers acknowledged that although the ACA’s individual   
   mandate might raise up to $4 billion a year by 2017, “it is   
   plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” rather   
   than to raise revenue.   
      
   The upshot of the appeals court’s ruling is that the ACA’s   
   required payment for failing to purchase health insurance is a   
   “tax” significant enough to support Congress’s authority to pass   
   such a measure, according to the US Supreme Court. But the   
   required payment does not qualify as “tax” for constitutional   
   provisions dictating how Congress passes such legislation,   
   according to the DC Circuit court.   
      
   Two of the judges on the appeals court panel were appointed by   
   President Obama. Rogers was appointed by President Clinton.   
      
   “The mere fact that [the individual insurance mandate] may have   
   been enacted solely pursuant to Congress’s taxing power does not   
   compel the conclusion that the entire Affordable Care Act is a   
   bill for raising revenue subject to the Origination Clause,”   
   Rogers wrote.   
      
   “Where, as here, the Supreme Court has concluded that a   
   provision’s revenue-raising function is incidental to its   
   primary purpose, the Origination Clause does not apply,” she   
   said.   
      
   One of Sissel’s lawyers, Timothy Sandefur of the conservative   
   Pacific Legal Foundation, said the court’s decision was   
   “disappointing.” He suggested they were considering filing an   
   appeal to the US Supreme Court.   
      
   Mr. Sandefur said the appeals court relied on “a new and   
   unprecedented distinction to exempt the Obamacare tax from the   
   Constitution’s rules for enacting taxes.”   
      
   “The Constitution makes no such distinction, and neither does   
   Supreme Court precedent,” Sandefur said in a statement.   
      
   “The precedents say that the only kinds of taxes that don’t have   
   to originate in the House are penalties and fines,” he said.   
   “But the Supreme Court itself ruled in 2012 that Obamacare’s   
   individual mandate is not a penalty or a fine. So the   
   Origination Clause should therefore apply.”   
      
   Sandefur added: “The DC Circuit for the first time holds that   
   judges can decide for themselves what the ‘main object or aim’   
   of a tax is, and then pick and choose whether the constitutional   
   rules on the enactment of new taxation should apply. We think   
   that’s wrong, and that’s what we’ll be taking to the Supreme   
   Court if necessary.”   
      
   The case is Sissel v. US Department of Health and Human Services   
   (13-5202).   
      
   http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0729/Did-Congress-pass-   
   Obamacare-the-right-way-Court-dismisses-lawsuit   
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)