Cheetah
Deity
The way things currently are however, the replacement constitution would be an absolute cluster-intercourse...
D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare
- Thread starter DinoDoc
- Start date
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Only if the sane people keep indulging the maniacs.
Which they probably will.
Which they probably will.
The will likely be overturned on en banc review.
Probably. I will be interested in seeing the reasoning they use to ignore the plain letter of the law though.
"We've been ignoring the written word of the Constitution when we feel like we should just do something we think is a good idea for hundreds of years now, what's a little thing like a congressional law to us?"
Also, someone mentioned about about Congress not convening a convention. They don't have to. The States, if enough vote for one, can force Congress to convene one whether they want to or not. That's right in the Constitution, though, so based on what I wrote above, the S.C. would probably just void the whole thing as silly.
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
The constitution always usesthat or of or to which or has clear explicit designation when pertaining to individual states or "the States"
This says "the State"
Correct me if im wrong but this literally is a grammar objection to the so called broad IRS interpretation, in the legalese
This says "the State"
Correct me if im wrong but this literally is a grammar objection to the so called broad IRS interpretation, in the legalese
Previously, threats of state-called constitutional conventions have forced the Congress to act and pass either amendments (which are usually ratified by said states forcing the Congressional hand) or legislation that addresses the concern.
It's a valid tool that should be used more often.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Sounds difficult.
Can't we just do it with secret holds?
"Checks and balances" generally require an effort, possibly even a confrontation that doesn't translate to a good photo op, and are for the good of the country. Not necessarily the politicians, who often have their hands full pandering to lobbyists, getting reelected, and generally wondering why no one told them that legislating, when they can find the time, is actually bloody hard work.
The US government is actually set up quite well. But we've had a couple of hundred years of people finding loopholes* and generally letting things slide.
I've long advocated changing the basic form of government every 200 years or so, just to shake out the dead wood.
0
I say we try communism next. Suck on this, Eastern Block! We're America, we can make it work!
*My favorite is supreme court appointments. Not because its very subtle, or particularly interesting, but because it's so huge.
Proposal: Appointments are for life, so that the judge won't be beholden to political pressures.
Answer: Appoint a narrow-minded jerk smart enough to put a thick veneer of plausibility on his party-line decisions, and so well educated and lauded that people will be loathe believe the truth. At least, people not familiar with higher education or the halls of power, where you discover Lawrence J. Peter was an optimist.
Hmm ... Ok, actually that was too cynical. The Peter Principle doesn't really kick into high gear unless somebody's got an agenda. Higher education ... not so bad. Politics, OTOH ... having an agenda is sort of the point.
I am so damned torn between revulsion at us trying out communism, and national pride at your "we can make it work." So conflicting!
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Why? The ruling seems to be pretty straight foreward. The legislative history supports the court's interpretation.
J
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Iam pretty sure after the 25th US government shutdown that congress will stop trying to pass a replacement constitution.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
The hangup is over a typo which would ordinarily be amended out of the law except it can't because our Congress is broken.
Berzerker
Deity
it was a poison pill from Max Baucus
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
Rofl where do you find this stuff
the dude is talking about committee proceedings
the dude is talking about committee proceedings
He was claiming two things in that conversation. The first is that the statute makes tax credits conditional on states establishing an Exchange, and therefore does not authorize tax credits through federal Exchanges, and the second is that this feature was essential for the Senates tax-writing committee to have jurisdiction to legislate in the area of health insurance.
Gnnnnn, fine, let's break out the Affordable Care Act itself and start reading!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm
Reposting the court findings:
Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act), makes tax credits available as a form of subsidy to individuals who purchase health insurance through marketplaces—known as “American
Health Benefit Exchanges,” or “Exchanges” for short—that are “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act. 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). On its face, this provision authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. See 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d). But the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted section 36B broadly to authorize the subsidy also for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by the federal government under
section 1321 of the Act. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1) (hereinafter “IRS Rule”.
Appellants are a group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish Exchanges. For reasons we explain more fully below, the IRS’s interpretation of section 36B makes them subject to certain penalties under the ACA that they would rather not face. Believing that the IRS’s interpretation is inconsistent with section 36B, appellants challenge the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it is not “in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court rejected that challenge, granting the government’s motion and denying appellants’. See Halbig v. Sebelius, No.
13 Civ. 623 (PLF), 2014 WL 129023 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2014). After resolving several threshold issues related to its jurisdiction, the district court held that the ACA’s text,
structure, purpose, and legislative history make “clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges.” Id. at *18. Furthermore, the court held that even if the ACA were ambiguous, the IRS’s regulation would represent a permissible construction entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Appellants timely appealed the district court’s orders, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the orders is de novo, and “[o]n an independent review of the record, we will uphold an agency action unless we find it to be ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance
purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation.
We'll start with “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act.
**Edit**
Well, that's embarrising.
I can't post Section 1311 of Obamacare because it exceeds the word limit allowed in a Civ Fanatics post.
Section 1304 defines "state"
Now let me look for the subsidy section hmm
Looks like somewhere in Section 1401 to 1421
So you can get a subsidy if you sign up on an Exchange and make a certain amount of money.
But is that the federal or state one?
Back to Section 1311:
Right, so no problems if a State sets up the Exchange.
And then to Section 1321 for what happens when a state won't/can't establish an Exchange:
Spoiler :
I think I missed what exactly a Federal Exchange is.
Does the HHS secretary making the exchange on behalf of a state make it a federal exchange, or state? Both?
I'm trying to follow the judges' reasoning and references but this law has like 1 million words in it
***Edit 2***
Curse this 2000 page law! My eyes BURN
Berzerker
Deity
the Repubs tell us government is the problem and proceed to prove it with their corruption, the Dems get in power and prove it with their incompetence
FFS, Congress could have deemed federal Exchanges to be established by the State if it had chosen to do so. Washington, D.C., for example, is not a state. Yet its Exchange is established by a State because the PPACA expressly defines the District as a State for purposes of Title I. The PPACA also expressly provides that any U.S. territory that establishes such an Exchange shall be treated as a State for purposes of [Section 1311]. Congress was very clear in both instances. If as the law's defenders argue and Congress intended for federal Exchanges to be deemed established by the State for the purposes of the law, it had ample opportunity to put that into the law and actively chose not to do so.Gnnnnn, fine, let's break out the Affordable Care Act itself and start reading!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm
