ONLY 40?

On November 8, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) and thirty-nine other Republican members of the House of Representatives filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") based on the Origination Clause that will be heard by the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals in early 2014.

The case, Sissel v United States Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the Washington, D.C. District Federal Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iraq war veteran who lives in Iowa, where he owns a small business, on July 26, 2010.

The Origination Clause of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states "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." Not a word of the Affordable Care Act originated in the House of Representatives. Instead, using a legislative trick, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took an innocuous bill that had passed the House unanimously on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, removed every word of its text following the first sentence, and replaced it with the Affordable Care Act language.

On June 28, 2013, Judge Beryl Hoffman, an Obama appointee, ruled against Sissel, dismissing his complaint using reasoning that required a rejection of Chief Justice John Roberts' controversial and even ridiculed majority opinion in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the 2012 NFIB v Sebelius case. In that opinion, Roberts declared Obamacare constitutional based upon his opinion that the law's individual mandate was, in fact, a tax.

Judge Hoffman ruled that the type of revenue raised by the act that Justice John Roberts deemed to be a tax was not the type of revenue that constituted a tax under the Origination Clause.

Specifically, Judge Hoffman made two assertions in her ruling that conservative critics believe are belied by the facts:

1. The individual mandate is not a "Bill for raising Revenue."

2. The individual mandate was an amendment to a bill that originated in the House of Representatives.

Even though Justice Roberts declared that the individual mandate was a tax in NFIB v Sebelius, Judge Hoffman ruled that the revenue raised by Affordable Care Act was "incidental" to the law, and therefore was not covered by the Origination Clause.

-SNIP-

Read more:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...amacare-Do-Over

Roberts is the toast of establishment DC because of his corruption. Does anyone think this clown will reverse himself on Zerocare and loose that media halo? I doubt it.

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath that this will actually go anywhere or we will see a good result, BUT....

At least some of them are starting to fight back. I was beginning to wonder.

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #2

---

Roberts is the toast of establishment DC because of his corruption. Does anyone think this clown will reverse himself on Zerocare and loose that media halo? I doubt it.

---

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #2

---

Roberts is the toast of establishment DC because of his corruption. Does anyone think this clown will reverse himself on Zerocare and loose that media halo? I doubt it.

---

Not with only 40 Gop house members--the GOP needs to put it's full presure on him for him to consider it--but I doubt that will happen so your right I don't think he will reverse

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #5

---

You're right...this should be a whole lot more than just 40.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #6

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #5

---

You're right...this should be a whole lot more than just 40.

---

After seeing how some GOP'ers acted during the shutdown it is clear to me that some of them want to keep Zerocare alive. They just want to put their own control on this massive regulation. DC hates losing power and Zerocare is all about power and control.

---