◼ ‘Because the tax originated in the Senate and not the House, it violates the Origination Clause’ - examiner.com
...the case of Matt Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al, challenging the ACA, dismissed by the D.C. District Court back in June, is heading for the D.C. Court of Appeals with his opening brief due on Oct. 24.
Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), representing Sissel, is challenging the ACA with a new constitutional cause of action.
Sissle’s case was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states challenge to the ACA.
In the NFIB case, the Supreme Court characterized the charge to Americans for failure to purchase health insurance as a tax rather than a penalty, so PLF’s amended complaint alleges the tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, in violation of the Constitution’s Origination Clause.