To the editor of THE EAGLE:
As a result of Matt Kinnaman’s op-ed commentary in the Sept. 29 Eagle "Obamacare vs. Constitution." I would like to point out that there is another constitutional test that has not gotten much attention from the press.
The last time Obamacare went before the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled that the insurance mandate was legal because it was a tax and not a penalty.
However, currently in the background and hidden away from the general public, the lawsuit "Sissel vs. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services" moves forward and is one step closer to the Supreme Court. President Obama, Sen. Reid and the liberal media don’t want any of us to know about this lawsuit that could remove the very heart of Obamacare -- the insurance mandate.
The lawsuit is based upon Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Origination Clause, which states: "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." Once the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax, that meant the bill violated this section of the Constitution. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Matt Sissel by Pacific Legal Foundation, contends that the bill that became known as the Affordable Care Act originated in the U.S. Senate and not the House, as required by the Constitution.
A district court dismissed the lawsuit on June 28 at the motion of the defendants. In other words, the pressure of the federal government forced the district to ignore the U.S. Constitution. On July 5, Pacific Legal Foundation filed an appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Washington D.C. Opening briefs are due on Oct. 24. If this court dismisses the lawsuit as the lower court did, Pacific Legal Foundation is prepared to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional, in essence, it would gut the heart out of Obamacare.
ROBERT W. HADDEN