George Will Is Right...And Wrong

[Mainecoons]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-will-obamacare-penalty-tax/2014/05/03/id/569311/

Will contends that the ACA originated in the Senate and the Supreme Court has already ruled that its "penalties" are actually taxes.

Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. The piece cited above explains this pretty clearly so that even a liberal can understand it.

So I say that Will is right, but...

He's wrong that the D.C. Court of Appeals is going to uphold the Constitution. This is a thoroughly left wing court that has a history of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench. IMO they will ignore the obvious Constitutional conflict and pretend it is OK.

What say you?

[Ethereal]

George Will is never wrong.

[Peter1469]

I would add that the House's tax power ought not be divorced from the Congress's enumerated powers found in Art. 1, sec. 8, U.S. Const.

But I know why Roberts did it. He has now locked the liberal wing of SCOTUS into a reading of the Constitution that neuters the Commerce Clause, or I should say, brings it back to what the Founders intended.

For those who haven't been awake, the Commerce Clause has been misused by Congress since 1937 to allow Congress to do practically anything that it wanted.

[1751_Texan]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-will-obamacare-penalty-tax/2014/05/03/id/569311/

Will contends that the ACA originated in the Senate and the Supreme Court has already ruled that its "penalties" are actually taxes.

Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. The piece cited above explains this pretty clearly so that even a liberal can understand it.

So I say that Will is right, but...

He's wrong that the D.C. Court of Appeals is going to uphold the Constitution. This is a thoroughly left wing court that has a history of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench. IMO they will ignore the obvious Constitutional conflict and pretend it is OK.

What say you?

There are other than ACA examples in which the House has accepted legislation originating from the Senate. In doing so, the House has accepted that precedent.

To now claim the procedure as unconsitutional after its acceptance, is like keeping the gate to the corral open and bitching because the horses got out.

[Chris]

There are other than ACA examples in which the House has accepted legislation originating from the Senate. In doing so, the House has accepted that precedent.

To now claim the procedure as unconsitutional after its acceptance, is like keeping the gate to the corral open and bitching because the horses got out.



So what you're saying is Congress can do anything it wants and the Court has no say about its constitutionality. Hasn't been that way since Marbury v Madison.

[Alyosha]

There are other than ACA examples in which the House has accepted legislation originating from the Senate. In doing so, the House has accepted that precedent.

To now claim the procedure as unconsitutional after its acceptance, is like keeping the gate to the corral open and bitching because the horses got out.

Of course, and when Americans break the law and then others break the same law they still go to jail, don't they? Precedent or not?

I hate this "make it up as you go" from the government but not from us.

[Mainecoons]

There are other than ACA examples in which the House has accepted legislation originating from the Senate. In doing so, the House has accepted that precedent.

To now claim the procedure as unconsitutional after its acceptance, is like keeping the gate to the corral open and bitching because the horses got out.

I can see you didn't read or understand the OP. The issue is not about accepting legislation, it is about originating revenue measures which under the Constitution, can ONLY be initiated in the House.

Will is certainly not the only one to notice how the first ACA decision set this thing up. Where he and the others go wrong is assuming that a leftist Federal court is going to follow the Constitution.

At the end of the day I expect that all that will happen here is a further gutting of the Constitution. There's certainly ample precedent for that expectation.

[hanger4]

Your link says this Thursday, that would be 5/8/14 ??

[Chris]

I can see you didn't read or understand the OP. The issue is not about accepting legislation, it is about originating revenue measures which under the Constitution, can ONLY be initiated in the House.

Will is certainly not the only one to notice how the first ACA decision set this thing up. Where he and the others go wrong is assuming that a leftist Federal court is going to follow the Constitution.

At the end of the day I expect that all that will happen here is a further gutting of the Constitution. There's certainly ample precedent for that expectation.



The Constitution was written with classical liberal rule of law in mind. Modern liberalism has changed that back to rule of man. So whatever enacts and enforces their desired agenda is the law.

[texan]

I went down this road and only about 5% of the appeals granted in this court/situation. I think this is kept alive for republican fundraising.

[WalterSobchak]

There are other than ACA examples in which the House has accepted legislation originating from the Senate. In doing so, the House has accepted that precedent.

To now claim the procedure as unconsitutional after its acceptance, is like keeping the gate to the corral open and bitching because the horses got out.



I just have one thing to say regarding your post.


GO SPURS GO!!!!

[Captain Obvious]

I just have one thing to say regarding your post.


GO SPURS GO!!!!

Nice to see ya, Walter!

[WalterSobchak]

Nice to see ya, Walter!


Thanks CO!

[Mainecoons]

I just have one thing to say regarding your post.


GO SPURS GO!!!!

Where have you been hiding out?