Court Rejects Tax Challenge to Affordable Care Act

Now it's not a tax?


A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected yet another legal challenge to Obamacare, ruling that it did not violate a constitutional provision that requires tax laws to be written in the House. Most of what became the Affordable Care Act was written in the Senate.

The legislation includes tax provisions but it was fundamentally a health bill, not a revenue bill, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. ruled. That means it falls outside the scope of the constitution's Origination Clause.

NEXT: Vid: Comic-Con, Cosplay, and Self-Expression

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I will certainly read this decision more closely, but how could it NOT be a tax when the 1st SCOTUS opinion which found it contitutional found it to be so on the basis that congress has the power to tax? (FYTW?)

    1. Well, Scotty, their make believe democracy up is down, fat is thin, good is bad..and you get the idea. It’s a kind of an Alice in Wonderland thing in which all the characters are slimy scum-wads and there are no good drugs.

    2. Maybe you haven’t paid any attention to past Supreme Court and Appeals Courts decisions. If you did you would note the total lack of sense or logic in them.

      They say anything they want. Why was NAFTA not a treaty when the vast majority of it had nothing to do with tariffs. It was all about property rights by foreign owners. Yet the case by the USWA was thrown out because some judge decided it wasn’t a treaty and was just a tax and trade bill which did not require a 2/3 Senate confirmation.

  2. Never has there been a bunch of more incompetent, ideologically driven douche bags! So hilarious.

  3. Reid simply took a bill that passed the House, removed most of the content, and inserted the text of the PPACA. See 1.usa.gov/1qJpvFX

    The courts seem to condone this (common) practice as sufficient for the origination clause, but it is quite dubious when the original bill passed by the House is simply an adjustment to the first-time homebuyers credit, like in this case. See 1.usa.gov/1nFvrwI (compare the versions passed by the House and Senate)

    If there are any limits of the origination clause, it would be nice for the courts to discuss them . . .

    1. Tyrants recognize no limits placed upon their powers.

  4. …”it was fundamentally a health bill,”…

    OTOH, you could read it as a tax, as Roberts mentioned. Have these two met?

  5. The legislation includes tax provisions but it was fundamentally a health bill, not a revenue bill,

    You know, there could be god knows how many precedents dealing with this issue, but this makes little sense to me. A plain reading of the constitution doesn’t say that it’s ok for the other branches to add tax laws as long as they part of other bills with larger goals. It says:

    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.

    This shit is really not as ambiguous as the intellectuals pretend it is. They just get tired of dealing with the rules so they stretch them out. Even if we accept that raising revenue refers only to taxes…

    But this issue was already ignored by the Robert’s opinion when it ruled that it was a tax even though it was mentioned in the dissent. It clearly makes no sense.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.