3,882 bytes added
, 03:54, May 11, 2013
== "Coffee and Markets" ==
I enjoyed listening to [http://coffeeandmarkets.com/2013/05/09/a-novel-challenge-to-obamacare/ your interview] on "Coffee and Markets." I am, though, rather skeptical about the success of the claims that you are bringing. With respect to the 5th Amendment claim and improper takings, I should note that no one is '''forced''' to pay a particular person or, for that matter, any private individual at all. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in ''NFIB'',
<blockquote>
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.
</blockquote>
''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 132 S. Ct 2566, 2596-97 (2012) (opinion of Chief Justice Roberts)
As to the well-hashed [[origination clause]] challenge (which I believe the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] is pursuing in ''Sissel v. Dep't of Health and Human Services''), this passage from the 9th Circuit's decision in ''Armstrong v. U.S.'' seems to be particularly relevant with respect to your statement that the Senate chose the wrong House bill to amend:
<blockquote>
Armstrong contends that the phrase "Bills for raising Revenue" in the origination clause encompasses only those enactments that increase taxes. As a result, he maintains that TEFRA was not a "bill for raising revenue" when it was proposed in the House, but instead was transformed into such a bill by the Senate. Armstrong contends that because TEFRA "originated" as a bill to raise revenue in the Senate, its passage violated the origination clause.
We cannot accept this restrictive and strained reading of the origination clause. The term "Bills for raising Revenue" does not refer only to laws increasing taxes, but instead refers in general to all laws relating to taxes. Wardell v. United States, 757 F.2d 203 at 205 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Black's Law Dictionary 1133 (Rev. 5th ed. 1979) (defining "raise" in the revenue context to mean "to collect, to levy, as to raise money by levying taxes"); see also 2 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States Sec. 1489 at 949-53 (1907) (recounting an 1872 debate between the House and Senate concerning the proper interpretation of the origination clause).
</blockquote>
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16468260759228174950 ''Armstrong v. U.S.'', 759 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1985)]
Again, though, I must say that it was certainly informative to listen to you speak about these matters and I hope that you continue to offer your insights to the public. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:37, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thanks for your very thoughtful analysis. You might consider becoming an attorney one day!
:I hope to respond more fully tomorrow, but suffice it to say that the Ninth Circuit cannot be expected to have the last word on the clear language of the Origination Clause, which was included in the Constitution as a limit on excessive or creative taxation.
:As to the Fifth Amendment claim, penalties can have a coercive effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:30, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
::I am going to build the [[origination clause]] entry further now, and may post some of the briefs there for further discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
The ''Armstrong v. U.S.'' decision by the Ninth Circuit appears different in its reasoning and conclusion from the decisions by the Supreme Court and the latest Fifth Circuit holding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 10 May 2013 (EDT)