Is full repeal of the ACA (Obamacare) only a matter of time now?
The 5-4 victory for Hobby Lobby, et al, that strikes down the mandatory contraception coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka, "Obamacare") is a step in the right direction. There is good reason to believe the Supreme Court will strike down the ACA as unconstitutional, ironically based on the first ACA decision wherein Justice Roberts declared that the penalty provisions of the ACA are, in fact, a tax.
The 5-4 victory for Hobby Lobby, et al, that strikes down the mandatory contraception coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka, "Obamacare") is a step in the right direction.
There is good reason to believe the Supreme Court will strike down the ACA as unconstitutional, ironically based on the first ACA decision in which Justice Roberts declared that the penalty provisions of the ACA are, in fact, a tax.
Our Constitution requires all tax bills to originate in the House of Representatives. In a clearly unconstitutional maneuver, the Democrat-led Senate cavalierly stripped a completely unrelated bill that had passed the House and inserted thousands of pages of the ACA, essentially snubbing the Constitution. As cover for that action, Democrats and president Obama repeatedly claimed that the ACA did not raise taxes, it merely penalized (monetarily).
A challenge to this unconstitutional (and unethical) "adoption" of the ACA has been working its way through the courts and is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.
The following material from an article at WorldNetDaily about the Hobby Lobby decision and describes the pending challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA:
... the entire law was adopted unconstitutionally and should be canceled, including its $800 billion in taxes.
The argument essentially makes the Constitution a silver bullet to kill Obamacare.
The case, brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause.
The eventual decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likely will be advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court.
PLF principal attorney Paul J. Beard II told WND after a recent court hearing that government attorneys claimed the U.S. House did not voice objections at the time of the votes to the fact the Senate had gutted a bill, inserted Obamacare and then approved it.
But Beard said the vote took place was at a time when no one was considering Obamacare as a tax-raising measure, because the Obama administration was arguing that the fees, payments and penalties weren’t taxes.
In fact, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled them as taxes, when the issue was before the court the first time.
Also, the attorneys argued, the Constitution allows the Senate to “amend” House bills, even though it requires tax measures to “originate” in the House. So exactly what do “amend” and “originate” mean?
Beard explained that the authors of the Constitution had different intents when they used different words, so it is unlikely the founders’ intent was the same when they allowed “amending” but not “originating.”
Whatever decision is reached, he told WND, it likely will be submitted to the court again, in a request for a hearing before the full court, and later, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It is our goal to get this before the Supreme Court again,” he confirmed.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
