Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public Law 111-148, violated article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution because it was a bill for raising revenue that did not originate in the House of Representatives.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 2015
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) H.R. 3590 of the 111th Congress, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, as passed by the House, was not a "bill for raising revenue" within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution; (2) H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, was a "bill for raising revenue"; and (3) PPACA was not within the power of the Senate to "propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" within the meaning of Article I, Section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.392 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.392 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.392 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.392 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.