There's One GOP Senator Who Knows the Dangers of Letting This BBB Provision...
Here's What Senate Dems Plan to Do to Gum Up the Works for...
Well, We Knew This GOP Senator Was Going to Screw Us
Supreme Court Made a Surprising Move in the Louisiana Redistricting Case Yesterday
Hegseth Reveals the Official New Name of the USNS Harvey Milk
Sabotage? Schumer Drags Out Trump’s BBB With All-Night Stunt to Delay GOP Victory
DHS Raids Los Angeles Home Tied to Iranian Smuggling Ring; Terror Watchlist Suspects...
Senate Gears Up to Vote on Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
Five GOP Lawmakers Threaten to Tank BBB Over Public Land Sell-Off
Far-Left Comedian Blames Trump for Her Overeating, Alcohol Abuse, and Depression
Ex-Hochul and Cuomo Aide Arrested As Chinese Agent, Kash Patel Calls for Full...
Nowhere to Run: DeSantis’ 'Alligator Alcatraz' Targets Border Crisis with Swamp Security
Did You Catch This Awkward Moment at a WNBA Game This Week?
As Kamala Harris Slips in Support for 2028, Another Top Candidate Also Has...
Cotton Slams ODNI As Bloated Bureaucracy, Pushes Bill to Slash Waste and End...
OPINION

How ObamaCare’s Victories Count Against It In Sissel v. HHS

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Randy Barnett has an excellent post at the Volokh Conspiracy about his recent amicus brief requesting the D.C. Circuit grant en banc review of Sissel v. HHS. (Sound familiar?) Sissel challenges the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate – which the Supreme Court ruled could only be constitutional if imposed under Congress’ taxing power – on the grounds that this, ahem, tax originated in the Senate rather than the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against Sissel. The panel’s rationale was that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not the sort of “Bill[] for raising revenue” that is subject to the Origination Clause, because the purpose of the PPACA is to expand health insurance coverage, not to raise revenue. Barnett explains why this reasoning is nutty. Under the Sissel panel’s ruling, no bills would ever be considered revenue measures because all revenue measures ultimately serve some other purpose. The panel’s interpretation would therefore effectively write the Origination Clause out of the Constitution. Barnett argues instead that the courts must recognize the PPACA as a revenue measure subject to the Origination Clause because the Supreme Court held the taxing power is the only way Congress could have constitutionally enacted that law’s individual mandate.

A shorter way to describe Barnett’s argument is that he turns ObamaCare supporters’ own victory against them: “You say the individual mandate is constitutional only as a tax? Fine. Then it’s subject to the Origination Clause.”

Barnett again corners the D.C. Circuit with another sauce-for-the-gander argument on the procedural question of whether that court should grant en banc review of its panel decision in Sissel:

Of course, en banc review is rarely granted by the DC Circuit, but given that it recently granted the government’s motion for en banc review of the statutory interpretation case of Halbig v. Burwell presumably because of the importance of the ACA, the case for correcting a mistaken constitutional interpretation is even more important, especially as the panel’s reasoning has the effect of completely gutting the Origination Clause from the Constitution…

Or, the shorter version: “You guys think Halbig is worthy of en banc review? Fine. If the Sissel panel erred, the downside is even greater.”

We’ll see whether the D.C. Circuit thinks the Constitution is as worthy of its protection as ObamaCare.

(Cross-posted at my comment-friendly blog, Darwin’s Fool.)

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement