U.S. House members to support Sissel appeal against Obamacare
On Friday, November 8, thirty-eight members of the United States House of Representatives will file an amicus brief in support of our appeal in Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, currently pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 13, fourteen Congressmen notified the Court of their intent to file an amicus brief; then, on November 1, an additional twenty-four Congressmen joined.
The case challenges the heart of Obamacare—specifically, its central provision requiring Americans to purchase a federally prescribed health insurance policy or pay a penalty tax.
Our appeal centers in large part on the constitutionality of the penalty tax. Sissel argues that the tax is unconstitutional, because it originated in the United States Senate, not in the House of Representatives—where the Constitution (Article I, section 7) requires all revenue-raising bills to originate. Here’s a blogpost that has more details about our appeal and a link to our opening brief.
Led by Congressman Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcomittee on the Constitution, the members are expected to discuss why the Obamacare tax is a bill for raising revenue that did not originate in the House of Representatives. The House members who will sign on to the amicus brief are:
Trent Franks, John Fleming, Robert Pittenger, Randy K. Weber, Sr., Steven Pearce, Doug LaMalfa, Doug Lamborn, Mark Sanford, Joe Barton, Jeff Duncan, Louie Gohmert, Marsha Blackburn, Michele Bachmann, Matt Salmon, Kerry L. Bentivolio, Jim Bridenstine, Mo Brooks, K. Michael Conaway, Steve Chabot, John J. Duncan, Jr., Bob Gibbs, Andy Harris, Tim Huelskamp, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Steve King, Bob Latta, Mark Meadows, Randy Neugebauer, Trey Radel, David P. Roe, Todd Rokita, Marlin A. Stutzman, Lee Terry, Tim Walberg, Brad R. Wenstrup, Lynn A. Westmoreland, Rob Wittman, and Ted S. Yoho.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›