An Obamacare Legal Challenge That’s Finally Dead?

Nicholas Bagley of the Incidental Economist: “Last month, I wrote about the other pending existential challenge to the ACA: the lawsuit claiming that it is unconstitutional because its enactment violated the Origination Clause. I said that nothing was likely to come of the challenge, and that nothing should. Today, a unanimous the D.C. Circuit panel released an opinion saying pretty much the same thing.”

The plaintiff, Matt Sissel, “argued that this ‘shell bill’ procedure violated the Origination Clause, which says that ‘[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.’ The ACA raised revenue and didn’t really originate in the House. So the plaintiff thinks it’s unconstitutional.'”

“The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Rogers, disagreed. Rogers’s analysis hinges on whether the ACA is a ‘Bill for raising Revenue.’ She notes—correctly—that “the Supreme Court has held from the early days of this Nation 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.’”

“This case is over, and it should be over.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites

    It does violate the origination clause. stop the shredding the Constitution!

  • Douglass Parker

    Knerdy, did you even read the article? Like it or not, the courts have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, not your or I. Of course, Mr. Sissel can appeal to the Supreme Court, but I doubt he will prevail there either.

Read previous post:
Large Majority Want to Shelter, Not Deport, Migrant Children

Washington Post: "When asked what the U.S. government should do about all the children arriving alone at the U.S. border,...