Eastern Ukraine: Late on 11 May, Pro-Russia leaders in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts reported large voter turnouts during the so-called "independence" referendum. Western news outlets have concentrated on the disruptions, lack of verification processes, confusion because of a shortage of polling places and alleged incidents of fraud. Russian and some Ukrainian outlets have reported long lines at polling places and a heavy turnout. Both sides have reported on clashes that each blamed on the other. In reconstructing the sequence of security-related events, NightWatch judges that the Kyiv regime's operations to use force to prevent the referendum began in the evening of 9 May. That is when encounters first began to be reported in eastern Ukraine. By the morning of 11 May, the locations experiencing the heaviest Kyiv regime pressure were Mariupol on the southeast coast and towns on the northern routes into Donetsk, particularly Krasnoarmiysk. The Donetsk regime confirmed that forces loyal to the Kyiv regime seized the town council and police department in Krasnoarmiysk. "The Dnipro-2 battalion arrived in security vans and seized the town council building and the town police department. However, citizens had time to hide the ballot papers, and they did not manage to destroy them." The referendum organizers closed all polling stations. A local blogger reported that armed troops had entered Krasnoarmiysk in the Donetsk Oblast and were guarding the town council and the town police department. It said that the soldiers were from the 93rd Dnipropetrovsk Mechanized Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine. Members of the National Guard reportedly seized ballot papers and electoral rolls. They also reportedly fired into a crowd of protestors. One person died on the spot. A wounded man was driven away in a private car, but died on the way to hospital. A third person was wounded. In Mariupol, also in Donetsk Oblast, unknown persons kidnapped the police chief and killed several policemen in clashes on 9 May, according to Kyiv regime Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. This report has not been confirmed by other sources.
Democrats are relieved that of the millions who signed up for nObamaCare, the percentage of enrollees who actually paid for coverage is higher than doomsayers predicted. That’s good news for Democrats from an electoral standpoint because had the number of payees been as low as some had forecast, sticker shocks would have been even worse than they are. (As WSJ reports today, the expected rate hikes under nObamaCare remain on track. That’s not good, but at least meeting poor expectations is still something.) The early numbers on the president’s health law, however, are also bringing some bad news. A new study suggests that only 26 percent of enrollees didn’t have insurance before. That’s not good for rates since such a small number are new contributors to the risk pool. But the bad news politically for Democrats is that there are so few Americans who have happy nObamaCare stories to tell. The law’s first year looks mostly like a shift from purely private policies (millions were cancelled) to government-arranged policies. Some have no doubt come voluntarily, lured by new subsidies or, if they are older and/or unwell, the chance to shift some cost to younger, healthier consumers. That’s fine, but a little bit of free money for the already insured isn’t the narrative Democrats were hoping for.
[A new survey from Gallup finds 55 percent of Democrats are less enthusiastic about this election.] -Fox News
The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote.
This case comes from Matt Sissel, an Iowa artist and small-business owner who is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates for limited government. Sissel neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business. Hence he objects to the ACA’s mandate that requires him to purchase it or pay the penalty that the ACA daintily calls the “shared responsibility payment.”
In June 2012, a Supreme Court majority accepted a, shall we say, creative reading of the ACA by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court held that the penalty, which the ACA repeatedly calls a penalty, is really just a tax on the activity — actually, the nonactivity — of not purchasing insurance. The individual mandate is not, the court held, a command but merely the definition of a condition that can be taxed. The tax is mild enough to be semi-voluntary; individuals are free to choose whether or not to commit the inactivity that triggers the tax.
The “exaction” — Roberts’s word — “looks,” he laconically said, “like a tax in many respects.” It is collected by the IRS, and the proceeds go to the Treasury for the general operations of the federal government, not to fund a particular program. This surely makes the ACA a revenue measure.
Did it, however, originate in the House? Of course not.
In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers — a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA’s contents.
Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the House bill.” The Senate’s shell game — gutting and replacing the House bill — created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House’s constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified.
Case law establishes that the origination clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates “a particular governmental program and . . . raises revenue to support only that program.” The second creates taxes that are “analogous to fines” in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitution’s enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACA’s tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the origination clause.
The ACA’s defenders say its tax is somehow not quite a tax because it is not primarily for raising revenue but for encouraging certain behavior (buying insurance). But the origination clause, a judicially enforceable limit on the taxing power, would be effectively erased from the Constitution if any tax with any regulatory — behavior-changing — purpose or effect were exempt from the clause.
The Court of Appeals sits six blocks from the Senate, which committed the legislative legerdemain of pretending to merely amend a House bill while originating a new one. Across the street from the Senate sits the Supreme Court, where this case may be headed.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court saved the ACA by declaring its penalty to be a tax. It thereby doomed the ACA as an unconstitutional violation of the origination clause.