Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + +
→"Coffee and Markets": re
The Ninth Circuit ''Armstrong v. U.S.'' decision appears different in its reasoning and conclusion from the decisions by the Supreme Court and the most recent Fifth Circuit holding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
The Ninth Circuit ''Armstrong v. U.S.'' decision appears different in its reasoning and conclusion from the decisions by the Supreme Court and the most recent Fifth Circuit holding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
:It seems that ''Herrada'' and ''Munoz-Flores'' dealt with whether the final act was revenue-raising (both cases found it was not, and therefore neither law was subject to the origination clause). There is actually a reasonable argument as to why PPACA falls into the same category of not being revenue-raising (and I'm sure it's one the defendants will assert, if the case even gets to the merits). ''Armstrong'' suggests a test that if the final act is revenue-raising, then we must check that (1) it began as a House bill and (2) the House bill dealt with revenue (not necessarily raising revenue): if so, then the Senate properly exercised its power to amend revenue bills, which is allowed according to the Origination Clause. PPACA would satisfy such a test (as HR 3590 was a House bill dealing with revenue).
:Thank you for writing up a very informative article from the stub I created last year. I look forward to looking through the brief when that becomes available. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:34, 11 May 2013 (EDT)