Why The ACA Is Unconstitutional, And Why Obama Should Be Impeached *Open Thread*


Our local paper, the Post and Courier, recently carried an informative article by George Will explaining how Chief Justice Roberts opened the door for the overturning of the ACA. It was one of the best explanations as to what the primary issue is I have seen to explain to laypeople just why it is un-Constitutional.

The commentary, “Chief justice planted the seed of Obamacare’s demise” has much more to it than I can include here, and I urge you to read the rest of it. Here are the salient points Will makes:

[…] In June 2012, a Supreme Court majority accepted a, shall we say, creative reading of the ACA by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court held that the penalty, which the ACA repeatedly calls a penalty, is really just a tax on the activity – actually, the nonactivity – of not purchasing insurance. The individual mandate is not, the court held, a command but merely the definition of a condition that can be taxed. The tax is mild enough to be semi-voluntary; individuals are free to choose whether or not to commit the inactivity that triggers the tax.

The “exaction” – Roberts’ word – “looks,” he laconically said, “like a tax in many respects.” It is collected by the IRS, and the proceeds go to the Treasury for the general operations of the federal government, not to fund a particular program. This surely makes the ACA a revenue measure.

Did it, however, originate in the House? Of course not. In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers – a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA’s contents.

Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the House bill.” The Senate’s shell game – gutting and replacing the House bill – created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House’s constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified.

Case law establishes that the Origination Clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates “a particular governmental program and … raises revenue to support only that program.” The second creates taxes that are “analogous to fines” in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitution’s enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACA’s tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the Origination Clause. The ACA’s defenders say its tax is somehow not quite a tax because it is not primarily for raising revenue but for encouraging certain behavior (buying insurance). But the Origination Clause, a judicially enforceable limit on the taxing power, would be effectively erased from the Constitution if any tax with any regulatory – behavior-changing – purpose or effect were exempt from the clause.

The Court of Appeals sits six blocks from the Senate, which committed the legislative legerdemain of pretending to merely amend a House bill while actually originating a new one. Across the street from the Senate sits the Supreme Court, where this case may be headed. […] (Click here to read the rest of this good explanation.)

And there you have it. The Senate cannot originate bills that raise revenue, and there is no doubt that this one does. The case referred to in the last paragraph is one Will mentions in his commentary, Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Below is Pacific Legal Foundation attorney, Paul J. Beard, II, which represents Matt Sissel. It is a great description of the manner by which the ACA violates the Constitution:

The explanation by Beard combined with Will’s commentary really lays out the argument very well, I thought.

Now, the railroading by the Democrats of this law is problematic in and of itself, especially since Obama continues to kick the can down the road on a number of provisions for nothing more than political opportunism for Democrats. That ploy is continuing to protect Democrats in 2014, though they should be held accountable for foisting this terrible law on the nation. Hopefully, people will be smart enough to do just that. Heads should roll, no doubt, but whether they will or not we have to wait to see.

That illegal activity on the part of Obama should be reason enough to begin impeachment proceedings. The president cannot change existing law willy-nilly, not on Obamacare, not on Immigration, or other laws cast aside by this Administration.

But it is to the issue of the Benghazi cover-up for which Judge Jeanine Pirro calls for Obama’s impeachment in this impassioned statement (h/t Helen). Also in the video is a discussion Judge Pirro has with former UN Ambassador Bolton:

I thought Judge Pirro made a number of outstanding points, but no one convicted Obama on his lack of action in Benghazi more than Obama did with his words on the attack in Ukraine as noted in the video above:


Isn’t that PRECISELY what Obama and his minions claimed happened in Benghazi?? Surely, SURELY, even the most biased, partisan Democrat can see the sheer hubris and flat out hypocrisy of Obama saying this.

But it is to his lack of fulfilling his duty to these Americans, and the subsequent cover up, that should lead to his impeachment.

At least that’s what I think. How about you? And this is an Open Thread.


41 Responses to “Why The ACA Is Unconstitutional, And Why Obama Should Be Impeached *Open Thread*”

  1. helenk3 Says:


    what backtrack did on 9-11-2012

  2. helenk3 Says:

    stole this from a commentor at No Quarter


    he put together a timeline of the video story

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Just a little clarification – jbjd is a she, and she is indeed an atty. She also wrote back in 2008 or 09 abt 10 different states breaking the law when their delegates voted for Obama rather than Clinton (the law requires them to vote the way the delegates broke down).

      Anyway – thank you for this – very informative!

  3. helenk3 Says:


    I read this yesterday and got chills History repeating itself?

  4. helenk3 Says:


    sharyl attkisson

  5. helenk3 Says:


    things getting a little testy

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      I saw a clip of that – WOW, Hume was great with her. She was doing what Dems have been doing on this issue, conflating, dissembling, and flat out lying…

  6. kenoshamarge Says:

    I had read that article by George Will and found it very interesting. However in our government these days that fact that something isn’t legal seems to matter very little. Obama changes laws as he sees fit, although the Executive Branch has no power to do that and nothing happens. He’s the most corrupt and lawless president I can remember, and I remember Nixon very well!

    You said, “Surely, SURELY, even the most biased, partisan Democrat can see the sheer hubris and flat out hypocrisy of Obama saying this”.

    I wish that was so. The obots have lost all integrity and care nothing for the truth or the welfare of the country. Politics is their God and they never stop worshipping at it’s dirty feet.

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Marge, I know you are right, and it just leaves me SMH. I simply do not understand how so many people, ELECTED officials, no less, can turn their backs on the very laws they swore to uphold. But for the citizenry to not then hold them accountable is just staggering.

      All to say, I fear you are right, and that is a massive problem for the republic. How can we stand as one nation when partisanship continually trumps country? We can’t. But to continue to willfully ignore, or even excuse, or dismiss, blatant Constitutional violations says a great deal…

  7. helenk3 Says:



    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      I think it is even worse than Obama being AWOL. He is indifferent and could really care less. If he did, even if we still lost Americans in Benghazi, we damn sure would have sent in help for them. NO ONE knew how long that battle was going to last and as Brig. Gen. Lovell said the other day in his testimony, we should have tried…

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      He’d rather play golf and give speeches to adoring fans than govern. And then when it comes time and he has no choice but to govern, he doesn’t know how. Pontificating and blaming others is not governing – even Obama supporters should have the common sense to see that. Too bad they don’t.

  8. helenk3 Says:


    all the president’s dudes starring justin bieber

  9. helenk3 Says:


    this is getting interesting. wonder how far it will go?

  10. helenk3 Says:


    it is official trey gowdy heading benghazi commission

  11. helenk3 Says:


    good question—why so many lies?

  12. helenk3 Says:


    can we please just disband the state dept?

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      This level of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment is completely unacceptable. This is appalling.

  13. kenoshamarge Says:

    Trey Gowdy picked to lead Benghazi panel😉 😉


    Boehner said of Gowdy:

    “Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come,” Boehner said in a statement. “His background as a federal prosecutor and his zeal for the truth make him the ideal person to lead this panel.”

    First time in a very long time I can remember agreeing with John Boehner 100%!

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Right?? It is amazing when something like that happens, isn’t it? But yes, Boehner is spot on abt Gowdy. I am so, so glad he is the one who will be handling this…

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      And I am dying to know what the “evidense” is that Gowdy referred to on Greta’s show. I need to know how much popcorn to buy.

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        I think the spelling “gene” wore out for me some time in the last few years. “Evidence”.

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        Oh, yeah – me, too!! Cannot wait. I’d say go ahead and buy a lot of popcorn! 🙂

        • kenoshamarge Says:

          You know that Gowdy must be well respected in Washington if even Beckel can’t find something bad to say about him. But give it time, once Gowdy produces some results Beckel will be on him like a duck on a June bug. As will the lapdog media. I believe that Trey is tough enough to thumb his nose at them. Perhaps because he doesn’t seem to have further political aspirations. Although I keep thinking what a wonderful Attorney General he would make. Tough, fair and honest – what it should be.

          • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

            I am getting ready to write a short post abt him, so stay tuned! 🙂

  14. helenk3 Says:


    mark levin on benghazi committee

  15. Katherine B. Says:

    I was watching a documentary on TV the other day about leaders like Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler who were able to exercise enormous control over millions of people to their detriment and to the ruin of their countries. It occurred to me how very lucky we are that Obama has turned out to be such a lazy self-absorbed good for nothing. That is not to say that he hasn’t inflicted enormous harm on our country – the ACA, the lawless disregard for our system of government, etc. – but at least he did not have the horrific murderous drive of these other aforementioned world leaders. Better he go golfing!

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Wow, that’s a really great attitude adjustment to make, Katherine! Who woulda thought we’d be glad Obama is lazy and prefers to play golf rather than be on the level of those whom you mentioned? Uh, yeah.

      And yes, he has exacted a tremendous cost on our nation, and he has gone after US citizens, as we know, using the IRS, and other federal agencies, to do so. But yeah, good point!

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      As my Grandma used to say Katherine – be grateful for small favors. 😉

  16. helenk3 Says:


    6 in 10 say backtrack hiding something about benghazi

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Huh – I guess the other 4 are the same ones who will vote Dem. regardless and who are buying into this whole Dem meme abt how this is much ado abt nothing…

  17. helenk3 Says:

    maybe this should have gone on yesterday’s post but I just got it today

    this is what sportmanship is


    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      It is certainly welcome now. I remember when it happened (think I had it in a post a while back). Such great camaraderie, wasn’t it? It says a whole lot abt the content of those young women’s character.

      Yep, this one is a keeper, no doubt abt it! Thanks for posting it, Helen!

  18. helenk3 Says:


    benghazi documents reveal backtrack white house hid truth from congress

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Catherine Herridge continues to do some of the best reporting on this story around. She is really something – a tremendous investigative reporter, and a consummate professional.

  19. helenk3 Says:


    numbers don’t lie

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Oh, wow – I hadn’t heard the number abt what people want for a prez in 2016. That doesn’t bode well for Hillary at all, does it? Yeah…

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      Best news I’ve heard all day.

  20. helenk3 Says:


    not looking too good

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: