Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (71230)	2/1/2015 12:16:40 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The circumstances under which the ACA was enacted have never been decided by the Court. That is, where the law in question was used to raise funds (100s of billions) to go into the general fund without any restriction on how the funds are used. That is a fundamental difference in the ACA that logically differentiates it from every other case the Court has heard. The argument will be, "If the Framers felt it necessary to put an "Origination Clause" in the Constitution such that the House of Representatives had the "Power of the Purse", under what circumstances WOULD the clause have that effect, if not in this instance?" The reality is that if the origination clause has any meaning at all, EVER, then this is the case. If they do not adhere to it and void the law, it will be a tacit REMOVAL of the clause from the Constitution. I'm not sure this court is going to be willing to do that.