Dysart Tessa L
Regent University School of Law.
Cornell J Law Public Policy. 2015 Spring;24(3):451-92.
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 1 (Origination Clause). "As we have often noted, '[c]onstitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied.'" United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 829 (1995) The Supreme Court's opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a permissible exercise of Congress's taxing power rekindled an old question about the constitutionality of the Act: Was the Act unconstitutional under the Origination Clause? The bill that became the ACA, H.R. 3590, originated in the House as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. It was gutted by the Senate and replaced with the ACA before being passed and sent back to the House for final passage. The Supreme Court has heard very few cases on the Origination Clause, and Origination Clause challenges have met with little success. Most of these cases have developed over the questions of whether the bill is actually a revenue-raising bill that is constitutionally required to be originate in the House, and, if so, whether the Senate amendments were appropriate. But United States Term Limits v. Thornton provides another angle under which to examine the constitutionality of the ACA: an indirect violation of a constitutional prohibition. In this Article, I will provide an overview of the ACA's passage and analyze it through the lenses of traditional Origination Clause arguments and the Term Limits approach.
“所有筹集收入的法案应在众议院提出；但参议院可像对待其他法案一样提出修正案或同意修正案。” 美国宪法第一条第七款第一项（起源条款）。“正如我们经常指出的，‘如果宪法权利能够……被间接剥夺，那么它们将毫无价值。’” 美国任期限制公司诉桑顿案，美国最高法院，第514卷，第779页，第829页（1995年）。美国最高法院在全国独立企业联合会诉西贝利厄斯案中的意见，维持了《患者保护与平价医疗法案》（ACA）作为国会征税权的一种可允许行使方式的合宪性，这重新引发了一个关于该法案合宪性的老问题：根据起源条款，该法案是否违宪？成为ACA的法案，即众议院第3590号法案，最初在众议院作为《2009年军人住房所有权税法》提出。它被参议院大幅修改，在通过并返回众议院进行最终表决之前被ACA取代。最高法院审理的关于起源条款的案件非常少，起源条款的质疑也很少成功。这些案件大多围绕该法案是否实际上是一项根据宪法必须在众议院提出的筹集收入法案展开，如果是，参议院的修正案是否合适。但美国任期限制公司诉桑顿案提供了另一个审视ACA合宪性的角度：对宪法禁令的间接违反。在本文中，我将概述ACA的通过过程，并通过传统起源条款论点和任期限制方法的视角对其进行分析。
