The Origination Clause II: Die Harder with a Vengeance, ObamaCare!

[Geee]

American Spectator:

A U.S. district court could soon decide if the Pacific Legal Foundation's (PLF) case against ObamaCare will continue in the U.S. court system. PLF alleges that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it violates the Origination Clause, which reads, "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."

In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that most of ObamaCare is constitutional under Congress' tax power. According to PLF, this ruling means that ObamaCare was a bill for raising revenue. PLF alleges that the Senate originated ObamaCare by "amending" a House bill titled the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. Among other decrees, this act granted tax credits to service members seeking their first homes. The Senate's amendment completely replaced the title and text of the Service Members act with ObamaCare, leaving only the bill's label of "House Resolution (H.R.) 3590." PLF, which calls such an amendment the "gut-and-amend" procedure, contends that the House and not the Senate should have originated ObamaCare.

In defense of ObamaCare, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that "the Senate may amend a House bill in any way it [the Senate] deems advisable, even by amending it [the bill] with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause." DOJ further argues that ObamaCare wasn't a bill for raising revenue because ObamaCare's main purpose is to improve the U.S. health care system and not to raise revenue.