Senator Mike Lee

Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.

Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.

Thank you Willy, for exposing yourself once again as an anti- constitutionalist fool.

Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.

There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution, but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance.

Willie Green (#1) --- Just another slobbering Establishment Tea Party stooge wrapping himself in the flag and claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.

There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution, but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance. --- Gatlin

Thank you Chief Cheep Gatlin of the canary clan, for confirming your alliance with a self confessed anti-constitutionalist.

It's obvious that you can't specify your charges against the patriots on this forum. -- Is it a failure of intellect, or are you just chickenshit?

There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution, but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them. It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance. --- Gatlin

There are too many quasi-experts on the Constitution around who don’t support a strict adherence to the Constitution,

I support a strict adherence to our Constitution (with the exception of the 16th Amendment), and do not consider myself an expert, merely a student of the document.

but rather their very specific interpretation of the Constitution. They live with the erroneous belief that their interpretation is the only right interpretation and dogmatically insist others agree with them.

Read my discussions with Nolu Chan to see who is dogmatic. -- Chan dogmatically insists, --- I appeal to the common sense and the common principles inherent in the document.

It can be said they all have a very common disorder: Banal human arrogance. --- Gatlin

Spoken like the very arrogant major that you pretend to be..

Will you, can you debate constitutional issues?

For instance, why do you insist that States have the power to bann certain weapons?

Thank you Chief Cheep Gatlin of the canary clan, for confirming your alliance with a self confessed anti-constitutionalist.

You are most welcome self-appointed Chief Shit of the only I can "correctly interpret" the Constitution movement.

I am not an anti-Constitutionalist. Stop making shit up.

I am however dogmatically against a piddly-assed pipsqueak attempting to tell me what the Constitution means and then trying to dogmatically enforce his warped views on me.

If that is a failure of my intellect or if I am just being chicken shit … then so be it.

Will you, can you debate constitutional issues?

With someone who has enough intelligence … of course.

That lets you out since you are totally incapable of thinking outside of the terms of logical fallacy where your errors in reasoning renders your positions invalid.

Read my discussions with Nolu Chan to see who is dogmatic. -- Chan dogmatically insists, --- I appeal to the common sense and the common principles inherent in the document.

Some more of your bullshit ...

I have read many of the exchanges and I watched chan make you look like a blithering idiot.

The part I most enjoy is that you just keep going back for more "smack downs" ... almost as if you receive some masochistic satisfaction.

Spoken like the very arrogant ...

Arrogant … probably not.

Acting like a Modern Pentathalon being somewhat headstrong, cocky, stubborn and ambitious … probably so.

There is a distinct difference …

For instance, why do you insist that States have the power to bann certain weapons?

I am not an anti-Constitutionalist. Stop making shit up.

You can't answer the States gun question above, can you? Why? ---, because it would show you up as an anti-constitutionalist, that's why.

I repeat: ---

Will you, can you debate constitutional issues?

With someone who has enough intelligence … of course. --- That lets you out

So you won't. Making you a chickenshit anti-constitutionalist.

Thanks..

Read my discussions with Nolu Chan to see who is dogmatic. -- Chan dogmatically insists, --- I appeal to the common sense and the common principles inherent in the document.

tpaine "COMMON SENSE"

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72

I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74

-- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68

nolu chan erroneously claims: --

When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

And amazingly enough, Chan responds by reposting some of my common sense replies..

Thanks Chan, you know not what you do, quite often..

So you won't. Making you a chickenshit anti-constitutionalist.

The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post.

The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post.

Deckard and tpaine outed themselves as constitutional idiots long ago.

Gatlin reconfirms that he is ...

I will not waste my valuable time or utilize my vast knowledge on you, so I reconfirm that that it is not possible for me to carry on an intelligent discussion with such a constitutional idiot ... namely you.

You are welcome.

Deckard and tpaine outed themselves as constitutional idiots long ago.

Yea ... BIG TIME!!

Deckard, ---- The "Major" outed himself as a cowardly enemy of the Constitution long ago, back on Liberty Post.

Deckard and tpaine outed themselves as constitutional idiots long ago. ---- nolu chan

Poor nolu, reduced to playing neener, neener games with the truth about gatlin.

Are you some relative too? (Harrowup made that claim) Is that why you defend his nonexistent honor?

claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture

I'm sure he doesn't literally claim that - so what are you actually saying about his views?

With someone who has enough intelligence … of course. --- That lets you out.

So you won't. Making you a chickenshit anti-constitutionalist.

Thanks..

I will not waste my valuable time or utilize my vast knowledge on you,

But you'll waste unlimited time on petty replies, as long as you don't have to debate.

As I've said, you're a phony chickenshit.

Willie Green (#1) --- (Lee) claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture.

I'm sure he doesn't literally claim that - so what are you actually saying about his views? --- ConservingFreedom

All these canaries are the same. ---- Big mouths on generalities, no hat on specifics.

so what are you actually saying about his views?

That they're dogmatic & narrow-minded.

Are you some relative too? (Harrowup made that claim)

I thought they supposedly hated each other at first before they eventually fell in love?

It thought they supposedly hated each other at first before they eventually fell in love.

Could be, but gat & h'rup ended as kissen cousins.

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.

The US government is corrupt.

Wow! -- You sure tell it like it is...

If you believe that crap, you graduated from Trump University.

My GED was issued by Trump U. I was in the same class as nolu chan and gatlin. I graduated with honors, while they were ranked hind tit.

you need to edit that post quickly as tyme is running out

See if you can find a sense of humor.

but most everybody keeps voting the same PIGS into government office.

You mean like our founding fathers set the election process as? lol

Well, you're in luck in 2016, asshole. This year a NON (D) or (R) is viable. His name is TRUMP. You can write him in if you like. The (D)'s and the (R)'s hate him... and the libtard Paultards REALLY hate him. He's your two party hatred dream come true. lol

This year a NON (D) or (R) is viable. His name is TRUMP.

More bullshit from a dumb elementary school crosswalk guard. Trump is just another pigment colour but underneath he is 0bama. Kinda like you ...

You drug addict agenda posting tool bags have been screaming 2 party= 1 party hate since LP or LF was formed... and now a VIABLE candidate is running that's hated by BOTH parties... and you assholes hate him more. F' off. You're a joke.

[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.

claiming the Constitution is Holy Scripture, and should be only be interpreted the way HE says it should be.

If you read it, the Constitution is actually quite clear - there is no wiggle room in, for example, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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.

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

Amusing post, because obviously, buck answered it before nolu asked..

Nolu puts himself forward as some sort of legal expert. --- He must have failed logic at any sort of law school he may have attended.

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

Amusing post, because obviously, buck answered it before nolu asked..

Well, it is obvious tpaine cannot or will not answer the question, what the hell Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

Will either of the two graduates of the tpaine School for the Gifted make the attempt?

Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.

Get it yet nolu?

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.

Get it yet nolu?

Yes, I get it. You are just full of shit and do not know what you are blathering about.

Your evasive answer is the equivalent of Because Benghazi!

My question was:

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!

You have failed to state what, if anything, the ACA has to do with the Origination Clause of the Constitution. You have failed to state that you do, or do not, claim that the ACA violated the Origination Clause, or what it was that you may claim constituted such violation.

You say that Chief Justice DECREED that Obamacase is just another tax, and that it ignored the congressional house of origin, but you have failed to identify which house you claim the ACA originated in, and why that was somehow improper. And you fail to state why or how the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Roberts, involves or runs afoul of the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

As Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, you should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

- Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.

Get it yet nolu?

Yes, I get it.

Thank you.

All the rest of your reply is mere quibbling, -- by poor, poor frustrated nolu.

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.

Get it yet nolu?

Yes, I get it.

Thank you.

All the rest of your reply is mere quibbling, -- by poor, poor frustrated nolu.

I get it. tpaine is just full of shit. So sayeth the courts, over and over and over. Of course, this time is no exception.

Yes, you may have another.

As Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, tpaine should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897) is a case where a bill originated in the House with no tax provision, but which had a tax provision added by amendment in the Senate. The contention in the case was that it was therefore unconstitutional and void. As the Court stated,

It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question prove that revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.

It did not matter whether it originated in the House or the Senate. Apparently the tpaine School for the Gifted does not teach how read and comprehend the Constitution or legal opinions.

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 provides,

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

The word "for" applies to the purpose of a "Bill," not to any single provision of it. The grammatical reading of the text of the Origination Clause is that it only reaches bills that have raising revenue as their purpose or object.

Too bad, so sad, you showed your incompetence again.

Here, see the whole opinion in Twin City. After 119 years, it is still good precedent.

U.S. Supreme Court

Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897)

167 U.S. 196

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Section 41 of the National Banking Act imposing certain taxes upon the average amount of the notes in circulation of a banking association, now found in the Revised Statutes, is not a revenue bill within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution declaring that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."

Whether in determining such a question the courts may refer to the journals of the two Houses of Congress for the purpose of ascertaining whether the act originated in the one House or the other is not decided.

The case is stated in the opinion.

167 U. S. 197

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action by the plaintiff in error to recover from the defendant in error the sum of $73.08 alleged to have been paid by the former under protest to the latter, who was at the time Treasurer of the United States, in order to procure the release of certain bonds, the property of the bank, which bonds, the declaration alleged, were illegally and wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff by the defendant.

The plaintiff went into liquidation in the manner provided by law on the 23d of June, 1891, and on the 25th of August, 1891, deposited in the Treasury of the United States lawful money to redeem its outstanding notes, as required by § 5222 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. After making such deposit, the bank demanded the bonds which had been deposited by it to secure its circulating notes, and of which defendant had possession as Treasurer of the United States. The defendant refused to deliver them unless the bank would make a return of the average amount of its notes in circulation for the period from January 1, 1891, to the date when the deposit of money was made, viz., the 25th of August, 1891, and pay a tax thereon. The bank then made a return of the average amount of its notes in circulation for the period from January 1 to June 30, 1891, and paid to the defendant $56.25, protesting that he had no authority to demand the tax, and delivered to him a protest in writing, setting forth that, in making the return and in paying the tax, it did not admit the validity of the tax, or defendant's authority to exact or collect it, but made the return and payment solely for the purpose of procuring the possession of the United States bonds belonging to it, which defendant had refused to release until such return and payment were made, and further protesting that it was not liable to the tax, or any part of it. The bank's agent then made another demand upon defendant for the bonds, but he refused to deliver them until a return should be made of the average amount of its notes in circulation for the period from July 1 to August 25, 1891, and a tax paid

167 U. S. 198

thereon. Its agent then delivered such return to defendant, and paid him $16.83, at the same time delivering a written protest in the same form as the one above mentioned. These transactions were with the defendant himself, and the money was paid to him in person.

The journals of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States for the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress were put in evidence by plaintiff. The bank claims that these journals show that the National Bank Act originated as a bill in the House of Representatives; that when it passed the house, it contained no provision for a tax upon the national banks, or upon any corporation, or upon any individual, or upon any property, nor any provisions whatever for raising revenue, and that all the provisions that appear to authorize the Treasurer of the United States to collect any tax on the circulating notes of national banks originated in the Senate, by way of amendment to the house bill.

A witness on behalf of the defendant testified, against the objection of plaintiff, that the money paid by it to him was covered into the Treasury and applied to the payment of the semiannual duty or tax due from the bank. But it did not appear whether this was done before or after the present action was brought.

At the close of the evidence, counsel for the bank moved the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in its favor, which motion the court overruled, and counsel for the bank excepted. On motion of the defendant, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for him. To that ruling of the court counsel for plaintiff excepted.

Such is the case which the bank insists is made by the record.

The taxing provisions contained in the National Bank Act are found in its forty-first section. That § is as follows:

"The plates and special dies to be procured by the Comptroller of the Currency for the printing of such circulating notes shall remain under his control and direction, and the expenses necessarily incurred in executing the provisions of this act respecting the procuring of such notes, and all other

167 U. S. 199

expenses of the bureau shall be paid out of the proceeds of the taxes or duties now or hereafter to be assessed on the circulation, and collected from associations organized under this act. And in lieu of all existing taxes, every association shall pay to the Treasurer of the United States, in the months of January and July, a duty of one-half of one percentum each half year from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, upon the average amount of its notes in circulation, and a duty of one-quarter of one percentum each half year upon the average amount of its deposits, and a duty of one-quarter of one percentum each half year, as aforesaid, on the average amount of its capital stock beyond the amount invested in United States bonds, and in case of default in the payment thereof by any association, the duties aforesaid may be collected in the manner provided for the collection of United States duties of other corporations, or the treasurer may reserve the amount of said duties out of the interest, as it may become due, on the bonds deposited with him by such defaulting association. And it shall be the duty of each association, within ten days from the first days of January and July of each year, to make a return, under the oath of its President or cashier, to the Treasurer of the United States, in such form as he may prescribe, of the average amount of its notes in circulation, and of the average amount of its deposits, and of the average amount of its capital stock, beyond the amount invested in United States bonds, for the six months next preceding said first days of January and July as aforesaid, and in default of such return, and for each default thereof, each defaulting association shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of two hundred dollars, to be collected either out of the interest as it may become due such association on the bonds deposited with the treasurer, or, at his option, in the manner in which penalties are to be collected of other corporations under the laws of the United States, and in case of such default the amount of the duties to be paid to such association shall be assessed upon the amount of notes delivered to such association by the Comptroller of the Currency, and upon the highest amount of its deposits and capital

167 U. S. 200

stock, to be ascertained in such other manner as the treasurer may deem best, provided that nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent all the shares in any of the said associations, held by any person or body corporate, from being included in the valuation of the personal property of such person or corporation in the assessment of taxes imposed by or under state authority at the place where such bank is located, and not elsewhere, but not at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such state; provided further that the tax so imposed under the laws of any state upon the shares of any of the associations authorized by this act shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under authority of the state where such association is located; provided also that nothing in this act shall exempt the real estate of associations from either state, county or municipal taxes to the same extent, according to its value, as other real estate is taxed."

13 Stat. 99, 111, c. 106.

The provision relating to taxation, which, it is alleged, was inserted by way of amendment in the Senate, appears as section 5214 of the Revised Statutes. Other provisions of the act of 1864 are reproduced in sections 5217 and 5218 of the Revised Statutes.

By section 5222 of the Revised Statutes. it is provided:

"Within six months from the date of the vote to go into liquidation, the association shall deposit with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money of the United States sufficient to redeem all its outstanding circulation. The Treasurer shall execute duplicate receipts for money thus deposited, and deliver one to the association and the other to the Comptroller of the Currency, stating the amount received by him, and the purpose for which it has been received, and the money shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States and placed to the credit of such association upon redemption account."

In Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 143 U. S. 672, in which the constitutionality of the Act of Congress of October 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 567, c. 1244, was questioned upon the ground that a

167 U. S. 201

certain provision which was in it upon its final passage was omitted when the bill was signed by the speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, this Court said:

"The signing by the speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President that a bill thus attested has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill thus attested receives his approval and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States carries on its face a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to co-equal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act so authenticated is in conformity with the Constitution."

Referring to the above case, it was said in Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547, 162 U. S. 560, that if the principle announced in Field v. Clark involves any danger to the public, it was competent for Congress to meet it by declaring under what circumstances, or by what kind of evidence, an enrolled act of Congress or of a territorial legislature, authenticated as required by law, and in the hands of the officer or department to whose custody it was committed by statute, may be shown

167 U. S. 202

not to be in the form in which it was when passed by Congress or by the territorial legislature.

The contention in this case is that the section of the Act of June 3, 1864, providing a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and for the circulation and redemption thereof, so far as it imposed a tax upon the average amount of the notes of a national banking association in circulation, was a revenue bill within the clause of the Constitution declaring that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills," Art. I, § 7; that it appeared from the official journals of the two houses of Congress that while the act of 1864 originated in the House of Representatives, the provision imposing this tax was not in the bill as it passed that body, but originated in the Senate by amendment, and, being accepted by the house, became a part of the statute; that such tax was therefore unconstitutional and void, and that consequently the statute did not justify the action of the defendant.

The case is not one that requires either an extended examination of precedents or a full discussion as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution "bills for raising revenue." What bills belong to that class is a question of such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not to attempt by any general statement to cover every possible phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question prove that revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.

167 U. S. 203

1 Story on Const. § 880. The main purpose that Congress had in view was to provide a national currency based upon United States bonds, and to that end it was deemed wise to impose the tax in question. The tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency that would rest primarily upon the honor of the United States, and be available in every part of the country. There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the government.

This interpretation of the statute renders it unnecessary to consider whether, for the decision of the question before us, the journals of the two houses of Congress can be referred to for the purpose of determining whether an act duly attested by the official signatures of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President, and which is of record in the State Department as an act passed by Congress, originated in the one body or the other. And, for the reasons stated, it is not necessary to inquire whether, in any view of the case, the defendant would have been personally liable for the tax collected by him pursuant to the act of Congress, and subsequently covered into the Treasury.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurs in the result.

- Chief Justice Roberts DECREED that 0bamakare is just another tax, totally ignoring the congressional house of origin.

Get it yet nolu?

Yes, I get it.

Thank you.

All the rest of your reply is mere quibbling, -- by poor, poor frustrated nolu.

You admitted that you misunderstood bucks original comment, yet you continue to spam the issue.

Poor, demented nolu, driven to prove a non important point, his own infallibility..

All the rest of your reply is mere quibbling, -- by poor, poor frustrated nolu.

You admitted that you misunderstood bucks original comment, yet you continue to spam the issue.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent documented that you are full of shit. I understand perfectly that two half-wits trying to discuss law only provoke laughter at their efforts.

As Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, tpaine should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897) is a case where a bill originated in the House with no tax provision, but which had a tax provision added by amendment in the Senate. The contention in the case was that it was therefore unconstitutional and void. As the Court stated,

It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question prove that revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.

It did not matter whether it originated in the House or the Senate. Apparently the tpaine School for the Gifted does not teach how read and comprehend the Constitution or legal opinions.

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 provides,

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Having made clear that Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, is Supreme Court precedent destroying the blather of the Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, I now continue with his remedial education on the precedents applicable to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Yes, you may have another.

The case of United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) [9-0] reinforced the opinion in Twin City to further doucment that Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law tpaine is a clueless idiot.

At 495 U.S. 386-87:

2. The special assessment statute is not a "Bil[l] for raising Revenue" and, thus, its passage does not violate the Origination Clause. This case falls squarely within the holdings of Twin City Bank v. Nebecker, 167 U. S. 196,

495 U. S. 387

and Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429, that a statute that creates, and raises revenue to support, a particular governmental program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to support government generally, is not a "Bil[l] for raising Revenue." The provision was passed as part of, and to provide money for, the Crime Victims Fund. Although any excess was to go to the Treasury, there is no evidence that Congress contemplated the possibility of a substantial excess, nor did such an excess in fact materialize. Any revenue for the general Treasury that § 3013 creates is thus incidental to that provision's primary purpose. The fact that the bill was not designed to benefit the persons from whom the funds were collected is not relevant to a determination whether the bill is a revenue bill. Since § 3013 is not a revenue bill, there is no need to consider whether the Clause would require its invalidation if it were one. Pp. 495 U. S. 397-401.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent documented that you are full --

You misunderstood bucks comment, and when I explained your confusion, --You had a hissy fit.

This teapot tempest is NOT about me, it has embarrassed YOU, and true to form, you can't handle it.

Go upstairs and complain to your mom. -- It might help.

You misunderstood bucks comment, and when I explained your confusion, --You had a hissy fit.

No, dumbshit, court opinions demonstrate that you and buck are equally lost.

The lesson continues on why you, tpaine, as Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) [9-0] reinforced the opinion in Twin City to further doucment that Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law tpaine is a clueless idiot.

Continuing from United States v. Munoz-Flores, at 397,

III

Both parties agree that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue." Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, 167 U. S. 202 (1897) (citing 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 880, pp. 610-611 (3d ed. 1858)). The Court has interpreted this

Page 495 U. S. 398

general rule to mean that a statute that creates a particular governmental program and that raises revenue to support that program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to support government generally, is not a "Bil[l] for raising Revenue" within the meaning of the Origination Clause. For example, the Court in Nebeker rejected an Origination Clause challenge to what the statute denominated a "tax" on the circulating notes of banking associations. Despite its label,

"[t]he tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency. . . . There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government."

Nebeker, supra, at 167 U. S. 203. The Court reiterated the point in Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429 (1906), where it upheld a statute that levied property taxes in the District of Columbia to support railroad projects. The Court rejected an Origination Clause claim, concluding that "[w]hatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act." Id. at 200 U. S. 437.

This case falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard.

This teapot tempest is NOT about me, it has embarrassed YOU, and true to form, you can't handle it.

Go upstairs and complain to your mom. -- It might help.

No, --- court opinions demonstrate that you and buck are equally lost.

Your obsession with court opinions demonstrate that you are demented. -- Get help.

[tpaine #47] You misunderstood bucks [sic] comment, and when I explained your confusion, --You had a hissy fit.

No, dumbshit, court opinions demonstrate that you and buck are equally lost.

The lesson continues on why you, tpaine, as Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) [9-0] reinforced the opinion in Twin City Bank v. Nebecker, 167 U. S. 196 (1897) to further document that Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law tpaine is a clueless twit.

The remedial education of tpaine continues with Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906) so that he may have a basic understanding of the precedents regarding what I am about to present in the next lesson.

202 U.S. 434

This is a bill in equity to enjoin Ellis H. Roberts, as Treasurer of the United States, from paying to any person any moneys of the District of Columbia, under certain acts of Congress.

[...]

And the bill also alleges that the acts of Congress are

"acts which provide for raising revenue, and are repugnant to Article I, § 7, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore null and void ab initio, and to their entire extent, because they and each and every one of them originated in the Senate, and not in the House of Representatives."

Certain volumes of the Congressional Record are referred to and made part of the bill.

202 U. S. 436

In other allegations of the bill are expressed the limitations upon the power of the United States and the District of Columbia as to taxation; that the acts of Congress complained of are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States; that public funds are appropriated for private use, and that exorbitant taxes will be required to meet the legitimate expenses of the District of Columbia, and appellant will thereby be oppressed and deprived of his property without due process of law.

The first contention of appellant is that the acts of Congress are revenue measures, and therefore should have originated in the House of Representatives, and not in the Senate, and, to sustain the contention, appellant submits an elaborate argument. In answer to the contention, the case of Twin City Nat. Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, need only be cited. It was observed there that it was a part of wisdom not to attempt to cover by a general statement what bills shall be said to be "bills for raising revenue" within the meaning of those words in the Constitution, but it was said, quoting Mr. Justice Story,

"that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question prove that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue."

1 Story on Constitution § 880.

This teapot tempest is NOT about me, it has embarrassed YOU, and true to form, you can't handle it.

Go upstairs and complain to your mom. -- It might help.

No, --- court opinions demonstrate that you and buck are equally lost.

Your obsession with court opinions demonstrate that you are demented. -- Get help.

And your latest reply, spewing out even more, -- is proof positive that you are near a loss of control, poor fella.

Perhaps you should medicate yourself.

[tpaine #49] You misunderstood bucks [sic] comment, and when I explained your confusion, --You had a hissy fit.

No, dumbshit, court opinions demonstrate that you and buck are equally lost.

[tpaine #49] Your obsession with court opinions demonstrate that you are demented. -- Get help.

Your obsessive belief that your demented opinions count, and those of the courts do not, is indicative of your mental incapacity.

The lesson continues on why you, tpaine, as Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted, should know that the PPACA did not come within the scope of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. Had it come within the scope of the Origination Clause, the PPACA originated in the House and would have thereby complied with the Origination Clause.

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) [9-0] reinforced the opinion in Twin City Bank v. Nebecker, 167 U. S. 196 (1897). Remedial education continued with Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906).

Now it is time for Sissel v. DHHS, 951 F.Supp.2d 159 (2013). In addition to a Commerce Clause challenge, Sissel presented tpaine's brainfart Origination Clause challenge to the PPACA in federal court. Let's see how it did in the D.C. District Court.

951 F.Supp.2d 160

The defendants also argue that the plaintiff's Origination Clause allegations fail to state a claim because the individual mandate is neither a "Bill[] for raising Revenue" subject to the Origination Clause, nor a bill that originated outside the House of Representatives. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the defendants' motion.

Oh, that's got to hurt. The Court found that tpaine's bullshit failed to state a claim because the PPACA was not a Bill for raising Revenue, it was not subject to the Origination Clause, and it did not originate outside the House of Representatives.

It only gets better, but I'm sure that's all the poor twit can take for now.