Changes

''Id.'' at 137.

''Id.'' at 137.

The Cotton Futures Act imposed “a tax intended to be prohibitive,” id., just as [[ObamaCare]] is being defended today as imposing a tax in order to deter people from going without health insurance.

The Cotton Futures Act imposed “a tax intended to be prohibitive,” ''id''., just as [[ObamaCare]] is being defended today as imposing a tax in order to deter people from going without health insurance.

The ''Hubbard'' court held:  “It is immaterial what was the intent behind the statute; it is enough that the tax was laid, and the probability or desirability of collecting any taxes is beside the issue.”  226 F. at 137.  The court struck down the Cotton Futures Act because it did not originate in the House.  It harmonized prior decisions that had upheld statutes against challenge under the Origination Clause, by observing that the prior decisions all assumed full application of the Clause to federal statutes.  “If these courts had not assumed that a revenue bill of Senate origin was a nullity, why spend so much time in proving that the act under consideration was not such a bill?”  ''Id.'' at 140.   

The ''Hubbard'' court held:  “It is immaterial what was the intent behind the statute; it is enough that the tax was laid, and the probability or desirability of collecting any taxes is beside the issue.”  226 F. at 137.  The court struck down the Cotton Futures Act because it did not originate in the House.  It harmonized prior decisions that had upheld statutes against challenge under the Origination Clause, by observing that the prior decisions all assumed full application of the Clause to federal statutes.  “If these courts had not assumed that a revenue bill of Senate origin was a nullity, why spend so much time in proving that the act under consideration was not such a bill?”  ''Id.'' at 140.