Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: (1) was a "bill for raising revenue" as those words were intended to be understood in article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution; and (2) did not originate in the House of Representatives.
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 153
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section
7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ``Bill
for raising Revenue'' that did not originate in the House of
Representatives.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 12, 2013
Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Salmon, Mr.
Stockman, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Pitts, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Carter, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Schweikert, and Mr. Issa) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section
7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ``Bill
for raising Revenue'' that did not originate in the House of
Representatives.
Whereas article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution
provides that, ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives'';
Whereas, on June 28, 2012, a majority of the United States Supreme Court held
that the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2009 ``cannot be upheld as an exercise of
Congress's power under the Commerce Clause'' but ``was within Congress's
power to tax'';
Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 was originally
introduced in the United States Congress by its sponsor as the ``Senate
health care bill'' in the form of a Senate Amendment to H.R. 3590, which
had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 416-0 as the
``Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009'';
Whereas there is ample evidence that the sponsors of the ``Senate health care
bill'' not only contemplated the possibility of substantial excess
revenues, but explicitly announced on its Senate introduction that,
``This bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion'';
Whereas section 1563 of the Senate amended H.R. 3590 explicitly stated that it
was the ``Sense of the Senate [that] this Act will reduce the Federal
deficit between 2010 and 2019'', and ``this Act will continue to reduce
budget deficits after 2019.''; and
Whereas the ``Senate health care bill'' that the President ultimately signed as
H.R. 3590 contains 17 numbered ``Revenue Provisions'', none of which are
germane to the subject matter of the original H.R. 3590, and nothing
else in the ``Senate health care bill'' was germane to the subject
matter of H.R. 3590: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives
that--
(1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009
was a ``Bill for raising Revenue'' as those words were intended
to be understood in article I, section 7, clause 1 of the
United States Constitution; and
(2) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009
did not originate in the House of Representatives.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line