TexasCHLforum.com

This is interesting. http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/2 ... p-obamacar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Interesting concept but not likely to succeed. I am not an attorney and one can never predict what the courts will do. Since Obama and Clinton were not legally on all of the ballots in 2008 will the court strike down Obama's presidency? Nope. I can tell you though that the entire field of medicine is now a nighmare and having an insurance card will not mean access to care. Which is why congress wants to exempt themselves. The rich will always get in their private jets and get care. The rest of us will be screwed.

Nice. We can only hope that this has the legs to carry it all the way through to the supreme court.

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I wish Mr. Sissel the best and hope he succeeds for all our sakes....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is interesting. http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/2 ... p-obamacar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Yes. My non-lawyerly take on it is that the case is relatively straightforward. Now that SCOTUS has ruled that it is a tax (sophistry for sure, but still helpful in this case) this case falls squarely within Constitutional boundaries that have never been addressed by SCOTUS and appear to be quite straightforward. It will be interesting reading the liberal gymnastics applied to wiggle out of this.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is interesting. http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/2 ... p-obamacar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Yes. My non-lawyerly take on it is that the case is relatively straightforward. Now that SCOTUS has ruled that it is a tax (sophistry for sure, but still helpful in this case) this case falls squarely within Constitutional boundaries that have never been addressed by SCOTUS and appear to be quite straightforward. It will be interesting reading the liberal gymnastics applied to wiggle out of this.

Wiggle room..??

The bill originated in the 111th House, as it should. Then it was "changed by the Senate", as they are allowed.
Then the "Senate version was approved by the House" via reconciliation.

The Court will say that it did not violate Constitutional requirements that Tax Bills originate in the House, because, wait for it.... The Bill DID originate in the House.

Skullduggery, indeed.

AndyC wrote:

Many have by now forgotten the legislative skullduggery that the Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress at the time, used to pass this monstrosity. The Senate took a bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives, the “Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009,” and removed every syllable. Then, the bill’s verbiage was replaced with that of a health care bill written by Democrat Senator Max Baucus with a little help from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama’s creatures at the White House.

What a bunch of scumbags

What's interesting is that one of those scumbags, Max Baucus, the author of the Senate version, came out on Fox News the other day and said that the AHCA was possibly the worst law ever written, and a train wreck about to to happen.

I'm like.... "Dude, YOU wrote the law. You ought to know!"

The Annoyed Man wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Many have by now forgotten the legislative skullduggery that the Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress at the time, used to pass this monstrosity. The Senate took a bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives, the “Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009,” and removed every syllable. Then, the bill’s verbiage was replaced with that of a health care bill written by Democrat Senator Max Baucus with a little help from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama’s creatures at the White House.

What a bunch of scumbags

What's interesting is that one of those scumbags, Max Baucus, the author of the Senate version, came out on Fox News the other day and said that the AHCA was possibly the worst law ever written, and a train wreck about to to happen.

I'm like.... "Dude, YOU wrote the law. You ought to know!"

TAM, I think the thing is that he physically didn't write the bill. He stuck his name on it to give it cover as a "conservative Democrat", which we both know is about as rare as a unicorn. I don't argue with you that he's a scumbag, though.