Sissel vs HHS -- THIS COULD END OBAMACARE!!!

Sissel vs HHS -- THIS COULD END OBAMACARE!!!

[link to www.pacificlegal.org]
The ACA (Obamacare) imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF’s amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills. PLF’s Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, in NFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLF’s Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA’s individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court agreed with this position, in the NFIB ruling. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by four justices, characterized the ACA’s charge as a federal “tax,” because it requires a payment to the federal government from people who decide not to buy health insurance. That holding prompted PLF’s new cause of action. “If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. “When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question in the NFIB case. The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts.”

[link to www.youtube.com]




[link to www.scribd.com]
THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER
Report No. 2: The Administration’s Lawless Acts on Obamacare and Continued Court Challenges to Obamacare
By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Under the Constitution’s Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1):
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Senate Democrats played a shell game in an attempt to satisfy the Origination Clause while passing Obamacare. The House of Representatives had unanimously (416-0) passed H.R. 3590, which was a 714-word bill granting tax credits for veterans. So the House-passed H.R. 3590 would have lowered taxes on veterans, thereby reducing revenue for the federal government. In fall 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took H.R. 3590, stripped out every word of this veteran tax credit bill, and replaced it with the 379,976 words of Obamacare. This was the bill that ultimately passed Congress and was signed by President Obama. Obamacare includes $675 billion in new revenue-raising provisions. And five Justices of the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax. The original House-passed version of H.R. 3590 was not a revenue raising bill. It may have dealt with tax issues, but every bill dealing with tax issues is not necessarily a revenue raising bill. Tax bills can reduce revenue. Indeed, the original version of H.R. 3590 would have reduced—rather than have raised—federal revenues. Thus, regardless of how the Senate amended H.R. 3590, it never was, nor ever could have been, a “Bill[] for raising Revenue” that “originate[d] in the House of Representatives.”
.....Under the plain text of the Constitution, Obamacare had to originate in the House of Representatives. It did not, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Obamacare violated the Constitution’s Origination Clause, because it raised revenue but did not “originate” in the House of Representatives. Pending cases, including one appeal at the D.C. Circuit (Sissel v. HHS), raise this challenge. If successful, this challenge would invalidate Obamacare in its entirety.



There are many other reasons listed in the above report why Obamacare is unconstitutional, illegal and lists some various other court cases going on with it.


I don't know law very well but if this has so many court cases against it, how could they enforce it till it's all litigated? They can't can they?