Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The record above shows the bill was received on 9/17/2009 in the HoR, and was received in the Senate on 10/8/2009.
Now, I don't know if there is another definition that can be used for "originate" in this context, but it looks like it started or originated in the HoR.
It's kind of like the birthers. You have to consider where they get their "information".
In the overall scheme of things, this doesn't really matter. The decision is taken. It doesn't really matter how they got there.
But it adds an interesting twist to Chief Justice John Souter Roberts' inexplicable abandonment of the idea that the Federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.
Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?
by Liz Goodwin
June 28, 2012
That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."
"No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.
(snip)
(Full text of the arrticle can be read at the above URL)
LOL, "University of Boulder". Now Boulder might wish the state would name the U after them, but it didn't.
In the overall scheme of things, this doesn't really matter. The decision is taken. It doesn't really matter how they got there.
But it adds an interesting twist to Chief Justice John Souter Roberts' inexplicable abandonment of the idea that the Federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.
Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?
by Liz Goodwin
June 28, 2012
That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."
"No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.
(snip)
(Full text of the arrticle can be read at the above URL)
Nope-
This was a brilliant political move to "pin" Obamacare on Obama and the dems. They cannot hide from the fact that they rammed a very unpopular measure down the throats of the American people.
Just another brick in the wall for Obama and the dems up for election in the fall. They OWN Obamacare now.
The taxing argument was a weak one , I have no idea why Roberts changed his vote.. really strange. Plus the mandate stands which is very perplexing to me. If it couldn't stand under the commerce clause how can it stand at all?? And the penalty is now called a tax. What is the mandate called??
Excuse me, he is the Chief Justice, and his opinions as you call it become LAW.
Excuse me, but CJ Roberts vote only counts as one. He is the ONLY justice to call it a tax. So, according to the decision it was one to eight that it was a tax. Roberts OPINION all by itself doesn't make it so.
Man. Look at the right-wingers twisting themselves into pretzels to try to figure out how to get rid of this law.
Most of us know that we must take the Senate over and elect a new President in order to repeal and reform the law that was nothing but a power grab for government (53 new bureaucracies to write regulations for it) and an insurance reform. Only fools think that just because most of those bureaucracies have been formed and are writing furiously very little of the law goes into effect till 2014. Repeal is very possible and, in fact, probable but has to have the people do their duty this fall.
Will we have an election this fall? Will The Won allow any competition for him by allowing that election? I still say he will declare martial law, as they have the organized riotous events planned for it. He can declare it any time through his use of EO which he has been very good at. I am ready to take the growth in government on at the polls this fall if we are allowed to vote. Can he defend all he has done to destroy us without martial law? I think not.
The record above shows the bill was received on 9/17/2009 in the HoR, and was received in the Senate on 10/8/2009.
Now, I don't know if there is another definition that can be used for "originate" in this context, but it looks like it started or originated in the HoR.
Only desperate fools think this thing originated in the House. It was written in the offices of Harry Reid inside locked doors by a few Senators (maybe 3 or 4), some insurance representatives, and some labor bosses. Not one Republican had anything to do with it and none of them voted for it.
The debate over this question was nearly two years long and the Senate didn't write it from anything that came from the House other than some debate that never happened again after its writing in the House. Only completely desperate people think that it originated properly in that the Senate didn't ever have any committee work on this law or any debate on the floor about it. Ah yes, they debated off and on about it but never at all about the finished product.
Excuse me, but CJ Roberts vote only counts as one. He is the ONLY justice to call it a tax. So, according to the decision it was one to eight that it was a tax. Roberts OPINION all by itself doesn't make it so.
Where are you people getting this one vote thing. The Majority Opinion says it is a tax. I don't know if he did that part only on his own but in the future when courts consider like cases they will use the majority opinion in making their decisions. The Majority Opinion says what it says and unless one of the other justices that voted in the majority writes something different it stands.
I think that some here are really digging deep to find something to defend the tax thing and losing their cause from looking only at something that isn't there.
And some will just make baseless allegations of imagined hatred and other silliness, eh?
Our "rulers" have earned it but those that live an imaginary life don't see it for they are too blind when it's obvious and witnessed......daily.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
