[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Jun 28, 2016 Author: Mike Lee Post Date: 2016-06-28 07:12:57 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 19179 Comments: 124 Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document Mike Lee The still-unfolding story of America’s Constitution is a history of heroes and villains—the flawed visionaries who inspired and crafted liberty’s safeguards, and the shortsighted opportunists who defied them. Those stories are known by few today. In Our Lost Constitution, Senator Mike Lee tells the dramatic, little-known stories behind six of the Constitution’s most indispensible provisions. He shows their rise. He shows their fall. And he makes vividly clear how nearly every abuse of federal power today is rooted in neglect of this Lost Constitution. For example: • The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. • The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the NSA now collects our private data without a warrant. • The Legislative Powers Clause means that only Congress can pass laws, but unelected agencies now produce ninety-nine out of every one hundred pages of legal rules imposed on the American people. Lee’s cast of characters includes a former Ku Klux Klansman, who hijacked the Establishment Clause to strangle Catholic schools; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who called the Second Amendment a fraud; and the revered president who began his first of four terms by threating to shatter the balance of power between Congress and the president, and who began his second term by vowing to do the same to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Constitution has always had its defenders. Senator Lee tells the story of how Andrew Jackson, noted for his courage in duels and politics, stood firm against the unconstitutional expansion of federal powers. He brings to life Ben Franklin’s genius for compromise at a deeply divided constitutional convention. And he tells how in 2008, a couple of unlikely challengers persuaded the Supreme Court to rediscover the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Sections of the Constitution may have been forgotten, but it’s not too late to bring them back—if only we remember why we once demanded them and how we later lost them. Drawing on his experience working in all three branches of government, Senator Lee makes a bold case for resurrecting the Lost Constitution to restore and defend our fundamental liberties. View this title on Amazon.com Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 108. #24. To: tpaine (#0) The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin. The US government is corrupt. buckeroo  posted on  2016-06-28   21:08:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: buckeroo, tpaine (#24) [Mike Lee, posted by tpaine] The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. [buckeroo] What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin. I understand tpaine and buckeroo were valedictorian and salutatorian at the tpaine School for the Gifted. Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific! The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-29   12:20:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#35) Mike Lee, posted by tpaine] The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific! No, not to your satisfaction, oh great Chan. The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. Yes, we all agree with the great Chan on that specific point. Now, can you explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific, oh great Chan. Amaze us with your impeccable logic, and more of your incredible ability to go on, and on, and on about this issue that no one gives a shit about... tpaine  posted on  2016-08-03   20:28:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: tpaine (#92) [tpaine #92] Mike Lee, posted by tpaine] The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. Yeah, Mike Lee, on his page 77: "For more than a century and a half after the founding of our nation, The First Amendment was not interpreted as requiring the government to be completely neutral between religion and atheism. ... Currency said "In God We Trust." There's an authoritative, trustworthy source. "E Pluribus Unum" was unofficially considered the national motto until 1956 when "In God We Trust" was adopted. "In God We Trust" was first authorized on coinage in 1864. Legislation in 1955 made it mandatory on coins and paper currency. In 1956 it became the national motto. Do you have a source that matters? Nobody gives a crap what Lee may have written. The Federal court decided en banc, in Sissel v. DHHS, 799 F.3d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2015) regarding the Obamacare Act that "the mandate in Section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause." While ruling on that basis, it also found that the PPACA originated in the House and would not have violated the Origination Clause had it applied. The dissent disagreed with the reasoning of the majority. The dissent would have "rule[d] for the Government on the ground that the Affordable Care Act originated in the House and thereby complied with the Origination Clause." The Court was unanimous that the Affordable Care Act originated in the House. To complete the Opinion of the Court, What of the dissent's reliance on statements by Elbridge Gerry and James Madison praising a seemingly broader Origination Clause? The version Gerry championed is not in the Constitution. Gerry criticized the Constitution for rejecting his vision of the Origination Clause, and he cited that rejection as a reason why he refused to sign the Constitution and advocated against its ratification. See Letter of Elbridge Gerry to the Vice President of the Convention of Massachusetts (Jan. 21, 1788), reprinted in 3 Farrand's Records at 265. Madison extolled the Origination Clause in Federalist 58, not because it gave the House power over all taxes, but because, in his opinion, it vested the House with exclusive power to originate appropriations bills. See The Federalist No. 58, at 359 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (explaining that the House's power would derive from its “power over the purse”). Neither “revenue” nor “tax” is mentioned in Federalist 58. Id. at 356–61. And at the Convention itself, Madison appeared vocally to oppose the Clause. See 2 Farrand's Records at 224 (Aug. 8, 1787); id. at 276–77 (Aug. 13, 1787). Because the Supreme Court has instructed us how to decide Origination Clause questions, this case presents no occasion for a comprehensive historical inquiry. But even the modest look we take here demonstrates that the gloss given by the dissent is wide of the mark. E. In addition to evidence from the framing and ratification, early constitutional history confirms that the Origination Clause's expected application was through a purpose-based test. St. George Tucker, writing in 1803 in the first major treatise on American law, argued that the Origination Clause should be read in light of English practice and therefore sweepingly construed to prevent the Senate from raising revenue through even “indirect modes of taxation” such as “debasing the value of the coin.” St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 261 (1803). Tucker, however, was forced to acknowledge, in a lengthy footnote, that the practice of the first Congresses had already shown that those bodies thought the Origination Clause was quite narrow, and that laws that raised revenue, even “to a very considerable amount,” did not implicate the Origination Clause unless “revenue was intended to be drawn to the government by these laws.” Id. at 261 n. § (1803). Justice Joseph Story, writing in 1833 in his own Commentaries on the Constitution, commented on Tucker's treatment of the Origination Clause, explaining that “[a] learned commentator[, Tucker,] supposes, that every bill, which indirectly or consequentially may raise revenue, is, within the sense of the constitution, a revenue bill.” 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 877, at 343 (1833). Justice Story went on to explain that “the practical construction of the constitution has been against his opinion,” id., and that “the history of the origin of the power, already suggested, abundantly proves, that it has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue,” id. Justice Story's views form the basis of controlling precedent in this court and in the Supreme Court. In deciding the first appeal of Twin City Nat'l Bank v. Nebeker, this court quoted extensively from Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution. The opinion noted Story's recognition that there were two views of the Origination Clause: a view that “supposes that every bill which indirectly or consequentially may raise revenue is, within the sense of the Constitution, a revenue bill,” and the superior view that “it has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue.” 3 App.D.C. 190, 201 (1894) (quoting 1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 880); see also United States v. Norton, 91 U.S. 566, 569, 23 L.Ed. 454 (1875) (citing Justice Story's views approvingly). The Supreme Court concluded, as we did then and must again here, that the latter view was correct. 167 U.S. 196, 202, 17 S.Ct. 766 (adopting Justice Story's views); see also Millard, 202 U.S. at 436, 26 S.Ct. 674 (treating Justice Story's views as having been adopted by the Supreme Court in Nebeker). Justice Story's comments on Tucker have been quoted in Supreme Court opinions on the Origination Clause, often as grounds for holding that the law at issue does not come within the scope of the Clause. See Munoz–Flores, 495 U.S. at 397, 110 S.Ct. 1964; Millard, 202 U.S. at 436, 26 S.Ct. 674 . Early congressional practice, recognized by two of America's most influential early constitutional scholars and endorsed by one of them (Story), strongly suggests that the original expected application of the Origination Clause was purposive. Most importantly, in our view, that is the approach that was adopted and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. * * * For these reasons, the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc presents no basis for the en banc court to revisit the holding that Sissel's challenge to the mandate in section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause. In adhering to Supreme Court precedent adopting a purposive interpretation, the panel opinion honors the balance of power between the two Houses of Congress as envisioned by the Framers, thereby safeguarding individual liberty. There is no basis for the dissent's accusation to the contrary. See Dissent at 1059–60. The court has correctly voted to deny rehearing en banc. And so the Obamacare mandate was held not to come within the scope of the Origination Clause and unanimously found to have originated in the House. All hope was not lost as plaintiff petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011916zor_l5gm.pdf U.S. Supreme Court ORDERS, 19 Jan 2016 15-543 SISSEL, MATT V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. The motion of Daniel G. Anderson, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. And after the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, all hope was lost. nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-03   22:42:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#95) And after the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, all hope was lost. Oh bullshit. Another day and another fight. buckeroo  posted on  2016-08-03   22:53:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: buckeroo, and the great Chan, fighting? (#96) The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. -- Chan Yes, we all agree with the great Chan, and Mike Lee on that specific point. Now, can you explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific, oh great Chan. Amaze us with your impeccable logic, and more of your incredible ability to go on, and on, and on about this issue that no one gives a shit about... Chan, --- After the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, all hope was lost. Oh bullshit. Another day and another fight. --- buckeroo Only the great Chan imagines he's fighting, Bucky. No one else here has a clue what his problem is. tpaine  posted on  2016-08-04   0:35:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: tpaine (#97) The supreme court has never upheld any challenge to a Federal law based on the origination clause. Ya never know, year 227 may be the charm. This case is dead. You are invited to bring another case overwhelming the court with your brilliant insights. Sissel v. DHHS, 951 F.Supp 2d 159 (Dist. Ct., D.C 2013) The Court concludes for the foregoing reasons that, even assuming the individual mandate was a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," that bill "originate[d] in the House of Representatives" as H.R. 3590 and was later duly amended by the Senate in a manner consistent with the Origination Clause. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court first holds that the plaintiff's Commerce Clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is foreclosed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB, and thus the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Commerce Clause. The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," and thus the plaintiff's Origination Clause challenge likewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event, even if the individual mandate were a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that "originated in the House of Representatives" and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause. Sissel v. DHHS, 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Where, as here, the Supreme Court has concluded that a provision's revenue-raising function is incidental to its primary purpose, see NFIB, 132 S.Ct. at 2596, the Origination Clause does not apply. The analysis is not altered by the fact that the shared responsibility payment may in fact generate substantial revenues. In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Sissel v. DHHS, 799 F.3d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2015) The panel opinion rests, as it must, on binding Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has never found an Origination Clause violation. And in three separate cases spanning more than a century, it held that the variable controlling whether a statutory provision falls within the ambit of the Origination Clause is whether raising revenue for the general Treasury is that provision's primary purpose. [...] It bears repeating that, in all of our history, the Supreme Court has not once found a law in violation of the Origination Clause. [...] First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. Dissent at 1050, 1060–63 & n. 6. To get there, it rests on Rainey v. United States for the proposition that, as long as a Senate amendment is “an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House[,][t]hat is sufficient” for it to comply with the Origination Clause. 232 U.S. 310, 317, 34 S.Ct. 429, 58 L.Ed. 617 (1914). Rainey, the dissent tells us, “is squarely on point and has never been overruled.” [...] For these reasons, the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc presents no basis for the en banc court to revisit the holding that Sissel's challenge to the mandate in section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause. Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914) Without intimating that there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated for the purpose of determining its validity, and upon the assumption for the sake of the argument that such power may be invoked, again we think the court below disposed of the contention upon a ground entirely satisfactory which we adopt and approve, the ourt saying: "I am also satisfied that the section inquestion is not void as a bill for raising revenue originating in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives. It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated Act of Congress, it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill." nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-05   16:04:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: nolu chan (#99) Amaze us with your impeccable logic, and more of your incredible ability to go on, and on, and on about this issue that no one gives a shit about... Only the great Chan imagines he's fighting, Bucky. No one else here has a clue what his problem is.. buckeroo (#96) --- Oh bullshit. Another day and another fight. Chan, -- another millenium, another unsuccesful fight. The supreme court has never upheld any challenge to a Federal law based on the origination clause. Ya never know, year 227 may be the charm. This case is dead. You are invited to bring another case overwhelming the court with your brilliant insights. If your 'invite' includes another several hundred demented posts by you, ---- no thanks. tpaine  posted on  2016-08-05   18:22:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: tpaine, buckeroo (#100) Now, can you explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific, oh great Chan. It ACA still has nothing to do with the Origination Clause. You and buckeroo the two idiots who have been arguing that it does. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46857&Disp=35#C35 #35. To: buckeroo, tpaine (#24) [Mike Lee, posted by tpaine] The Origination Clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, but contempt for the clause ensured the passage of Obamacare. [buckeroo] What's even more contempt is that Chief Justice Roberts agrees that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin. I understand tpaine and buckeroo were valedictorian and salutatorian at the tpaine School for the Gifted. Can you two can explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific! The house of origin for all federal revenue bills is the House of Representatives. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46857&Disp=39#C39 [tpaine #39] "Slightly changing bucks comment should give you your answer: -- Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin. A bill which has been promulgated by the Legislative Branch as a House Resolution is beyond the power of the Judicial Branch to declare as anything other than a House Resolution, originated in the House. The precedent is well over a century old and continues to be controlling. The Affordable Care Act was H.R. 3590. Only Dumb and Dumber could think that anything promulgated in a HOUSE Resolution could violate the origination clause of the Constitution. And, of course, the Origination Clause only pertains to Acts whose primary purpose is to raise revenue. As the Court stated in Sissel, "In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause." Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310, 317 (1914) Without intimating that there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated for the purpose of determining its validity, and upon the assumption for the sake of the argument that such power may be invoked, again we think the court below disposed of the contention upon a ground entirely satisfactory which we adopt and approve, the court saying: "I am also satisfied that the section inquestion is not void as a bill for raising revenue originating in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives. It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated Act of Congress, it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill." The supreme court has never upheld any challenge to a Federal law based on the origination clause. Ya never know, year 227 may be the charm. This case is dead. You are invited to bring another case overwhelming the court with your brilliant insights. Sissel v. DHHS, 951 F.Supp 2d 159 (Dist. Ct., D.C 2013) The Court concludes for the foregoing reasons that, even assuming the individual mandate was a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," that bill "originate[d] in the House of Representatives" as H.R. 3590 and was later duly amended by the Senate in a manner consistent with the Origination Clause. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court first holds that the plaintiff's Commerce Clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is foreclosed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB, and thus the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Commerce Clause. The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," and thus the plaintiff's Origination Clause challenge likewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event, even if the individual mandate were a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that "originated in the House of Representatives" and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause. Sissel v. DHHS, 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Where, as here, the Supreme Court has concluded that a provision's revenue-raising function is incidental to its primary purpose, see NFIB, 132 S.Ct. at 2596, the Origination Clause does not apply. The analysis is not altered by the fact that the shared responsibility payment may in fact generate substantial revenues. In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Sissel v. DHHS, 799 F.3d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2015) The panel opinion rests, as it must, on binding Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has never found an Origination Clause violation. And in three separate cases spanning more than a century, it held that the variable controlling whether a statutory provision falls within the ambit of the Origination Clause is whether raising revenue for the general Treasury is that provision's primary purpose. [...] It bears repeating that, in all of our history, the Supreme Court has not once found a law in violation of the Origination Clause. [...] First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. Dissent at 1050, 1060–63 & n. 6. To get there, it rests on Rainey v. United States for the proposition that, as long as a Senate amendment is “an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House[,][t]hat is sufficient” for it to comply with the Origination Clause. 232 U.S. 310, 317, 34 S.Ct. 429, 58 L.Ed. 617 (1914). Rainey, the dissent tells us, “is squarely on point and has never been overruled.” [...] For these reasons, the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc presents no basis for the en banc court to revisit the holding that Sissel's challenge to the mandate in section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Section Research Manager March 15, 2011 The Supreme Court has occasionally ruled on Origination Clause matters, adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. Second, this report describes the various ways in which the Origination Clause has been enforced. Given the fact that originating revenue measures is the House’s prerogative, it falls to the House to enforce this provision of the Constitution most frequently. The House’s primary method for enforcement is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives. This is done by voting on a privileged resolution. Less typically, the House may choose to enforce its prerogative by taking no action on the disputed Senate measure, or referring it to committee. [...] Article I, Section 7, provides that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills, but there have been occasions on which either the House or Senate has debated the question of how expansively the Senate’s amending authority should be interpreted. [...] In the House, James A. Garfield, stated that I do not deny their [the Senate’s] right to send back a bill of a thousand pages as an amendment to our two lines. But I do insist that their thousand pages must be on the subject matter of our bill. [...] As currently understood, because the Senate has no rule requiring that amendments to revenue bills be germane, the constitutional provision allowing the Senate to “propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills” opens the door to Senate action on a wide range of possible alternatives.35 In this way, the Senate may “originate” specific tax provisions, even though it may not originate tax measures. Chief Justice Edward White, writing the majority opinion in Rainey v. United States stated that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient .... it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill. Similarly, in 1968, the House refused to hold that a Senate amendment to add a general surtax on income to a House-originated bill concerning excise tax rates was a violation of the Origination Clause. ... The court’s understanding of the Origination Clause is therefore based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. These principles are illustrated in two often cited cases. In Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, the Supreme Court held that an act to establish a national currency backed by United States bonds, that also imposed a fee on banks based on the average amount of notes in circulation, did not violate the clause because it was not a revenue bill. In this case, the Court ruled that the primary purpose of the bill was to establish a national currency, and the fee on banks was incidental to that purpose. In Millard v. Roberts, the Court held that a bill to impose a tax on property in the District of Columbia to raise money for the express purpose of providing railroad terminal facilities was not a bill to raise revenue because the money raised was for a specific purpose, rather than to meet the general expenses or obligations of the government. A more recent ruling based on these principles appeared in United States v. Munoz-Flores. In this case, the law being challenged required federal courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor, to be used for some part of the expenses associated with compensating and assisting victims of crime. In the opinion of the Court, the fact that this requirement would create new income for the federal government was not alone sufficient for the measure to be considered a revenue bill. The Court held that the case “falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard. ... The House The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate has been printed on blue paper. This process is provided for under House Rule IX, clause 2(a)(1), which states: A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution [emphasis added], shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. Any Member of the House may offer such a resolution, but normally it is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who would do so. ... CONCLUSION ... The system of government formulated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787 incorporated an intricate balancing of authorities and prerogatives, between the federal and state governments, among the branches of the federal government, and within the legislative branch, between the House and Senate. On the issue of taxation, the framers sought to mirror British practice by requiring that “All Bills for raising Revenue” originate in the popularly elected House, but balanced this by allowing the Senate the right to amend such bills. Left ambiguous was a precise definition about which measures would comprise revenue bills, and how far the Senate’s right to amend them extended. Over the course of more than two centuries of experience, the meaning of the Origination Clause has been honed by congressional and judicial precedents. Today, the clause applies unambiguously only to those bills that have as their primary purpose raising funds for the general operation of the federal government. However, it remains for the House, Senate, and federal courts to employ this understanding to enforce the application of the clause. The primary method for ensuring the enforcement of the Origination Clause has historically been blue-slip resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives. This remains true today, although other avenues of enforcement, from simple House inaction on Senate-originated bills to review by the Supreme Court, also play significant roles. Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process June 26, 2015 Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution is known generally as the Origination Clause because it requires that [a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. As generally understood, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not originate any measure that includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to a non-revenue measure. However, the Senate may generally amend a House-originated revenue measure as it sees fit. The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.”1 Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. The House takes this action by adopting a resolution stating that a Senate bill (or Senate amendment(s) to a non-revenue House bill) “in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill [or such bill with the Senate amendment(s) thereto] be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.” It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate is printed on blue paper. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rainey v United States, 23 US 310 (1914) Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 951 F Supp 2d 159 (Dist Ct, DC 2013) Obamacare and the Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS 13-5202, 760 F 3d 1 (DC Cir 2014) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 799 F3d 1035 (DC Cir 2015) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution (2011) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, Blue-Slipping - Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives (2015) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-07   16:24:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: nolu chan (#101) Can you explain what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? Be specific, oh great Chan. --- And be aware that no one really gives a shit. It ACA still has nothing to do with the Origination Clause. --- You and buckeroo the two who have been arguing that it does. You're wrong, as usual, about me 'arguing that it does'. --- I don't care, -- and the only reason I'm responding to you at this point, -- is to see you making a fool of yourself spamming the forum. -- Please, continue with your demented, lengthy, cut and paste essays, that no one reads... tpaine  posted on  2016-08-08   14:51:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: tpaine (#102) A bill which has been promulgated by the Legislative Branch as a House Resolution is beyond the power of the Judicial Branch to declare as anything other than a House Resolution, originated in the House. The precedent is well over a century old and continues to be controlling. The Affordable Care Act was H.R. 3590. Only Dumb and Dumber could think that anything promulgated in a HOUSE Resolution could violate the origination clause of the Constitution. And, of course, the Origination Clause only pertains to Acts whose primary purpose is to raise revenue. As the Court stated in Sissel, "In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause." Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310, 317 (1914) Without intimating that there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated for the purpose of determining its validity, and upon the assumption for the sake of the argument that such power may be invoked, again we think the court below disposed of the contention upon a ground entirely satisfactory which we adopt and approve, the court saying: "I am also satisfied that the section inquestion is not void as a bill for raising revenue originating in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives. It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated Act of Congress, it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill." The supreme court has never upheld any challenge to a Federal law based on the origination clause. Ya never know, year 227 may be the charm. This case is dead. You are invited to bring another case overwhelming the court with your brilliant insights. Sissel v. DHHS, 951 F.Supp 2d 159 (Dist. Ct., D.C 2013) The Court concludes for the foregoing reasons that, even assuming the individual mandate was a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," that bill "originate[d] in the House of Representatives" as H.R. 3590 and was later duly amended by the Senate in a manner consistent with the Origination Clause. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court first holds that the plaintiff's Commerce Clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is foreclosed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB, and thus the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Commerce Clause. The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," and thus the plaintiff's Origination Clause challenge likewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event, even if the individual mandate were a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that "originated in the House of Representatives" and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause. Sissel v. DHHS, 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Where, as here, the Supreme Court has concluded that a provision's revenue-raising function is incidental to its primary purpose, see NFIB, 132 S.Ct. at 2596, the Origination Clause does not apply. The analysis is not altered by the fact that the shared responsibility payment may in fact generate substantial revenues. In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Sissel v. DHHS, 799 F.3d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2015) The panel opinion rests, as it must, on binding Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has never found an Origination Clause violation. And in three separate cases spanning more than a century, it held that the variable controlling whether a statutory provision falls within the ambit of the Origination Clause is whether raising revenue for the general Treasury is that provision's primary purpose. [...] It bears repeating that, in all of our history, the Supreme Court has not once found a law in violation of the Origination Clause. [...] First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. Dissent at 1050, 1060–63 & n. 6. To get there, it rests on Rainey v. United States for the proposition that, as long as a Senate amendment is “an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House[,][t]hat is sufficient” for it to comply with the Origination Clause. 232 U.S. 310, 317, 34 S.Ct. 429, 58 L.Ed. 617 (1914). Rainey, the dissent tells us, “is squarely on point and has never been overruled.” [...] For these reasons, the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc presents no basis for the en banc court to revisit the holding that Sissel's challenge to the mandate in section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Section Research Manager March 15, 2011 The Supreme Court has occasionally ruled on Origination Clause matters, adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. Second, this report describes the various ways in which the Origination Clause has been enforced. Given the fact that originating revenue measures is the House’s prerogative, it falls to the House to enforce this provision of the Constitution most frequently. The House’s primary method for enforcement is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives. This is done by voting on a privileged resolution. Less typically, the House may choose to enforce its prerogative by taking no action on the disputed Senate measure, or referring it to committee. [...] Article I, Section 7, provides that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills, but there have been occasions on which either the House or Senate has debated the question of how expansively the Senate’s amending authority should be interpreted. [...] In the House, James A. Garfield, stated that I do not deny their [the Senate’s] right to send back a bill of a thousand pages as an amendment to our two lines. But I do insist that their thousand pages must be on the subject matter of our bill. [...] As currently understood, because the Senate has no rule requiring that amendments to revenue bills be germane, the constitutional provision allowing the Senate to “propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills” opens the door to Senate action on a wide range of possible alternatives.35 In this way, the Senate may “originate” specific tax provisions, even though it may not originate tax measures. Chief Justice Edward White, writing the majority opinion in Rainey v. United States stated that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient .... it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill. Similarly, in 1968, the House refused to hold that a Senate amendment to add a general surtax on income to a House-originated bill concerning excise tax rates was a violation of the Origination Clause. ... The court’s understanding of the Origination Clause is therefore based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. These principles are illustrated in two often cited cases. In Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, the Supreme Court held that an act to establish a national currency backed by United States bonds, that also imposed a fee on banks based on the average amount of notes in circulation, did not violate the clause because it was not a revenue bill. In this case, the Court ruled that the primary purpose of the bill was to establish a national currency, and the fee on banks was incidental to that purpose. In Millard v. Roberts, the Court held that a bill to impose a tax on property in the District of Columbia to raise money for the express purpose of providing railroad terminal facilities was not a bill to raise revenue because the money raised was for a specific purpose, rather than to meet the general expenses or obligations of the government. A more recent ruling based on these principles appeared in United States v. Munoz-Flores. In this case, the law being challenged required federal courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor, to be used for some part of the expenses associated with compensating and assisting victims of crime. In the opinion of the Court, the fact that this requirement would create new income for the federal government was not alone sufficient for the measure to be considered a revenue bill. The Court held that the case “falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard. ... The House The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate has been printed on blue paper. This process is provided for under House Rule IX, clause 2(a)(1), which states: A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution [emphasis added], shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. Any Member of the House may offer such a resolution, but normally it is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who would do so. ... CONCLUSION ... The system of government formulated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787 incorporated an intricate balancing of authorities and prerogatives, between the federal and state governments, among the branches of the federal government, and within the legislative branch, between the House and Senate. On the issue of taxation, the framers sought to mirror British practice by requiring that “All Bills for raising Revenue” originate in the popularly elected House, but balanced this by allowing the Senate the right to amend such bills. Left ambiguous was a precise definition about which measures would comprise revenue bills, and how far the Senate’s right to amend them extended. Over the course of more than two centuries of experience, the meaning of the Origination Clause has been honed by congressional and judicial precedents. Today, the clause applies unambiguously only to those bills that have as their primary purpose raising funds for the general operation of the federal government. However, it remains for the House, Senate, and federal courts to employ this understanding to enforce the application of the clause. The primary method for ensuring the enforcement of the Origination Clause has historically been blue-slip resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives. This remains true today, although other avenues of enforcement, from simple House inaction on Senate-originated bills to review by the Supreme Court, also play significant roles. Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process June 26, 2015 Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution is known generally as the Origination Clause because it requires that [a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. As generally understood, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not originate any measure that includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to a non-revenue measure. However, the Senate may generally amend a House-originated revenue measure as it sees fit. The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.”1 Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. The House takes this action by adopting a resolution stating that a Senate bill (or Senate amendment(s) to a non-revenue House bill) “in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill [or such bill with the Senate amendment(s) thereto] be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.” It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate is printed on blue paper. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rainey v United States, 23 US 310 (1914) Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 951 F Supp 2d 159 (Dist Ct, DC 2013) Obamacare and the Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS 13-5202, 760 F 3d 1 (DC Cir 2014) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 799 F3d 1035 (DC Cir 2015) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution (2011) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, Blue-Slipping - Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives (2015) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-09   14:32:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: nolu chan, continues to spam this thread. Dementia? (#105) Ho hum. More of the same crap from poor Chan... tpaine  posted on  2016-08-10   14:04:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: tpaine (#106) A bill which has been promulgated by the Legislative Branch as a House Resolution is beyond the power of the Judicial Branch to declare as anything other than a House Resolution, originated in the House. The precedent is well over a century old and continues to be controlling. The Affordable Care Act was H.R. 3590. Only Dumb and Dumber could think that anything promulgated in a HOUSE Resolution could violate the origination clause of the Constitution. And, of course, the Origination Clause only pertains to Acts whose primary purpose is to raise revenue. As the Court stated in Sissel, "In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause." Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S. 310, 317 (1914) Without intimating that there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated for the purpose of determining its validity, and upon the assumption for the sake of the argument that such power may be invoked, again we think the court below disposed of the contention upon a ground entirely satisfactory which we adopt and approve, the court saying: "I am also satisfied that the section inquestion is not void as a bill for raising revenue originating in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives. It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated Act of Congress, it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill." The supreme court has never upheld any challenge to a Federal law based on the origination clause. Ya never know, year 227 may be the charm. This case is dead. You are invited to bring another case overwhelming the court with your brilliant insights. Sissel v. DHHS, 951 F.Supp 2d 159 (Dist. Ct., D.C 2013) The Court concludes for the foregoing reasons that, even assuming the individual mandate was a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," that bill "originate[d] in the House of Representatives" as H.R. 3590 and was later duly amended by the Senate in a manner consistent with the Origination Clause. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court first holds that the plaintiff's Commerce Clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is foreclosed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB, and thus the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Commerce Clause. The Court further holds that the individual mandate was not a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," and thus the plaintiff's Origination Clause challenge likewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event, even if the individual mandate were a "Bill[] for raising Revenue," the Court holds that it was nevertheless an amendment to a bill that "originated in the House of Representatives" and thus was enacted in compliance with the Origination Clause. Sissel v. DHHS, 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Where, as here, the Supreme Court has concluded that a provision's revenue-raising function is incidental to its primary purpose, see NFIB, 132 S.Ct. at 2596, the Origination Clause does not apply. The analysis is not altered by the fact that the shared responsibility payment may in fact generate substantial revenues. In light of the Supreme Court's historical commitment to a narrow construction of the Origination Clause, this court can only hold that the challenged measure — whose primary purpose "plainly" was not to raise revenue, id. at 2596 — falls outside the scope of the Clause. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Sissel v. DHHS, 799 F.3d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2015) The panel opinion rests, as it must, on binding Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has never found an Origination Clause violation. And in three separate cases spanning more than a century, it held that the variable controlling whether a statutory provision falls within the ambit of the Origination Clause is whether raising revenue for the general Treasury is that provision's primary purpose. [...] It bears repeating that, in all of our history, the Supreme Court has not once found a law in violation of the Origination Clause. [...] First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. First, the dissent would reach the same conclusion that the Court did on a different basis. It reasons that H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle that became the Affordable Care Act, was a revenue-raising bill that originated in the House. Dissent at 1050, 1060–63 & n. 6. To get there, it rests on Rainey v. United States for the proposition that, as long as a Senate amendment is “an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House[,][t]hat is sufficient” for it to comply with the Origination Clause. 232 U.S. 310, 317, 34 S.Ct. 429, 58 L.Ed. 617 (1914). Rainey, the dissent tells us, “is squarely on point and has never been overruled.” [...] For these reasons, the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc presents no basis for the en banc court to revisit the holding that Sissel's challenge to the mandate in section 5000A of the Affordable Care Act does not come within the scope of the Origination Clause. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Section Research Manager March 15, 2011 The Supreme Court has occasionally ruled on Origination Clause matters, adopting a definition of revenue bills that is based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. Second, this report describes the various ways in which the Origination Clause has been enforced. Given the fact that originating revenue measures is the House’s prerogative, it falls to the House to enforce this provision of the Constitution most frequently. The House’s primary method for enforcement is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives. This is done by voting on a privileged resolution. Less typically, the House may choose to enforce its prerogative by taking no action on the disputed Senate measure, or referring it to committee. [...] Article I, Section 7, provides that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills, but there have been occasions on which either the House or Senate has debated the question of how expansively the Senate’s amending authority should be interpreted. [...] In the House, James A. Garfield, stated that I do not deny their [the Senate’s] right to send back a bill of a thousand pages as an amendment to our two lines. But I do insist that their thousand pages must be on the subject matter of our bill. [...] As currently understood, because the Senate has no rule requiring that amendments to revenue bills be germane, the constitutional provision allowing the Senate to “propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills” opens the door to Senate action on a wide range of possible alternatives.35 In this way, the Senate may “originate” specific tax provisions, even though it may not originate tax measures. Chief Justice Edward White, writing the majority opinion in Rainey v. United States stated that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient .... it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill. Similarly, in 1968, the House refused to hold that a Senate amendment to add a general surtax on income to a House-originated bill concerning excise tax rates was a violation of the Origination Clause. ... The court’s understanding of the Origination Clause is therefore based on two central principles that tend to narrow its application to fewer classes of legislation than the House: (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. These principles are illustrated in two often cited cases. In Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, the Supreme Court held that an act to establish a national currency backed by United States bonds, that also imposed a fee on banks based on the average amount of notes in circulation, did not violate the clause because it was not a revenue bill. In this case, the Court ruled that the primary purpose of the bill was to establish a national currency, and the fee on banks was incidental to that purpose. In Millard v. Roberts, the Court held that a bill to impose a tax on property in the District of Columbia to raise money for the express purpose of providing railroad terminal facilities was not a bill to raise revenue because the money raised was for a specific purpose, rather than to meet the general expenses or obligations of the government. A more recent ruling based on these principles appeared in United States v. Munoz-Flores. In this case, the law being challenged required federal courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor, to be used for some part of the expenses associated with compensating and assisting victims of crime. In the opinion of the Court, the fact that this requirement would create new income for the federal government was not alone sufficient for the measure to be considered a revenue bill. The Court held that the case “falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard. ... The House The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.” Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate has been printed on blue paper. This process is provided for under House Rule IX, clause 2(a)(1), which states: A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution [emphasis added], shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. Any Member of the House may offer such a resolution, but normally it is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who would do so. ... CONCLUSION ... The system of government formulated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787 incorporated an intricate balancing of authorities and prerogatives, between the federal and state governments, among the branches of the federal government, and within the legislative branch, between the House and Senate. On the issue of taxation, the framers sought to mirror British practice by requiring that “All Bills for raising Revenue” originate in the popularly elected House, but balanced this by allowing the Senate the right to amend such bills. Left ambiguous was a precise definition about which measures would comprise revenue bills, and how far the Senate’s right to amend them extended. Over the course of more than two centuries of experience, the meaning of the Origination Clause has been honed by congressional and judicial precedents. Today, the clause applies unambiguously only to those bills that have as their primary purpose raising funds for the general operation of the federal government. However, it remains for the House, Senate, and federal courts to employ this understanding to enforce the application of the clause. The primary method for ensuring the enforcement of the Origination Clause has historically been blue-slip resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives. This remains true today, although other avenues of enforcement, from simple House inaction on Senate-originated bills to review by the Supreme Court, also play significant roles. Blue-Slipping: Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives Congressional Research Service James V. Saturno Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process June 26, 2015 Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution is known generally as the Origination Clause because it requires that [a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. As generally understood, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not originate any measure that includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to a non-revenue measure. However, the Senate may generally amend a House-originated revenue measure as it sees fit. The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as “blue-slipping.”1 Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause. The House takes this action by adopting a resolution stating that a Senate bill (or Senate amendment(s) to a non-revenue House bill) “in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill [or such bill with the Senate amendment(s) thereto] be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.” It is called blue-slipping because historically the resolution returning the offending bill to the Senate is printed on blue paper. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rainey v United States, 23 US 310 (1914) Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 951 F Supp 2d 159 (Dist Ct, DC 2013) Obamacare and the Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS 13-5202, 760 F 3d 1 (DC Cir 2014) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sissel v DHHS, 799 F3d 1035 (DC Cir 2015) Obamacare and Origination Clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution (2011) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRS Report - Saturno, Blue-Slipping - Enforcing the Origination Clause in the House of Representatives (2015) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-10   17:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 108.         There are no replies to Comment # 108. End Trace Mode for Comment # 108. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com