The ObamaCare fight: It's far from over
Contrary to President Obama's statements, ObamaCare hardly is “settled” and “here to stay,” as it faces numerous legal challenges in federal courts — including one that questions the constitutionality of its passage.
Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is now before the D.C. Court of Appeals, “a traditional stepping-stone to the U.S. Supreme Court,” The Washington Free Beacon reports. Plaintiff Matt Sissel, an Iowa veteran and small-business man who objects to the “individual mandate” coverage requirement, contends ObamaCare “is a tax-laden law that should have originated in the House rather than the Senate.”
The Supreme Court ruling that held ObamaCare constitutional because the individual mandate is a tax gives Sissel a strong basis. So does the way that Senate Democrats pushing ObamaCare “complied” with the Constitution's Origination Clause, which requires “all bills for raising revenue” to originate in the House.
They entirely replaced a six-page House bill's entirely unrelated language — which would have lowered taxes for military homebuyers — with ObamaCare's 2,000-plus pages. The bill then went back to the House, where it passed without GOP votes.
A fundamental constitutional rule, the Origination Clause too often is roundly ignored — or paid mere lip service, as Senate Democrats did regarding ObamaCare. And that's why Sissel holds such promise for permanently derailing this train wreck of a law.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- The Box
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Sunday pops
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- The Thursday wrap