Question for day....



Initially, Obamacare was "sold" as a "service."  Obama and his team were diligent is saying that this was NOT a TAX INCREASE.
Criticism was and is that the government cannot FORCE anyone to buy anything. As a result, there have been 20 state lawsuits calling Obamacare unconstitutional. (Which I agree.)

NOW...

Obama's team is making their primary defense to the lawsuits that Obamacare falls within the federal government's power to levy and collect TAXES.


Obviously, this administration will SAY ANYTHING and DO ANYTHING to seize its power.

But what I am wondering....


Will the video statements claiming that Obamacare was a "service" during the sales period prior to passage be LEGALLY RELEVANT enough that it seriously damages/undoes the case that Obamacare is Constitutional under the government's power to tax?

Or will the courts simply say "It doesn't matter how it was sold, it effectively is a tax, and you are all stupid for not reading it (never mind that it was a 2,800 page monstrosity and those voting on it were bought and paid for, AND the will of the people was not considered relevant?)


What say you?




For reference:


We Told You So –– Obama Tries to Pull a Fast One On Health Care





–– John

IMO what the politicians said to get ZeroCare passed won't matter since they didn't make those statements under oath.

More important is whether the USSC will declare the law unconstitutional since it's a tax law that didn't originate in the House of Representatives, or whether they'll let it slide.

First sentence of US Constitution, Article I, Section 7:

OK... that is hope.

When this came to my attention, I suspected that the "Sales pitch" wouldn't legally matter–– Buyer Beware, and all that.

Tax Law not originating from the House of Representatives is something that can be worked with.


What is the possible defense to THAT?  Did ANY PART of this this thing originate in the House?  My mind is fuzzy on it.


–– John

im not even a legal amateur but obama got himself in a bind here

will the msm try their hardest to downplay it or completely skip over it?  i think so

Apparently they used some procedural BS trickery to bypass that. Even though obamascare was wholly conceived in the Senate, they took a completely unrelated bill written by charles rangel in the House to give tax breaks to military servicemen, stripped everything out of it including the name of the bill, stuck obamascare in it, and then passed that.



The courts are going to have to decide whether the House passing H.R.3590 the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" and then the Senate entirely rewriting that bill into another law and renaming it "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" flies under Article I Section 7.



I say it's an obvious attempt to defy the spirit of the highest law in the land. If the framers wanted taxes to be created in the Senate, they never would have restricted that power to the House in Article I. But with the garbage sitting in the courts these days you never know.

Interesting discussion at http://volokh.com/2010/07/20/of-constitutional-decapitation-and-healthcare/.