Article 1 Section 7

Many people have been pointing out that the Slaughter solution to the Dem's quagmire, is unconstitutional based on Article 1 Section 7 of the constitution--they've been focusing on the second paragraph:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

But doesn't that same section have another bill-killer? How about the paragraph immediately before the above:

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.

This will be raising revenue in a big way, and thus, the bill should have to originate in the House not the Senate. Notice it doesn't say "taxes" it says "revenue". In other words, laws that take money from people and give it to the government must originate in the House. So Article 1 Section 7 makes Obamacare doubly unconstitutional.

Remember a time when pesky little things like the Constitution actually mattered. Reminds me of my favorite Tea Party sign, which I saw way back a the Tax Day party last year in Glendale: "Legalize the Constitution!"

Steve: More here. "The end result is that however clear a constitutional violation may be presented by the Slaughter rule — and I think former judge, now–Stanford Law professor Mike McConnell is correct that it's pretty clear here — there is a significant impediment to challenging that violation in federal court." So, basically, nobody in power cares.