I think the SCOTUS would have no problem striking down a law violating sentence 1 of Article 1 Section 7, if it were violated overtly by creating S.B. xxxx that dealt with taxes. (What Hogdogs was originally referring to.)
Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 7
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.
The Senate isn't that stupid. SOP for the Senate is apparently to gut and rename tax legislation from the House, turning it into an entirely different bill while retaining the same bill number.
I wonder if someone could mount a constitutional challenge on the reasoning that changing the title and stated purpose (and the contents) of a bill, turns it into a new bill, regardless of the history of its bill number.
There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH][PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.3590.EH][PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.3590.PCS][PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.3590.AS][PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print - PP)[H.R.3590.PP][PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.3590.EAS][PDF]
7 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.3590.ENR][PDF]
No one can claim that that sequence is in the spirit of Article 1 Section 7. Other than the bill number, it became a completely different bill. The court arguments would be about whether that change is a valid exercise of the amendment power. Arguing that such fundamental changes constitute a valid amendment, would render the first clause of Art. 1 Sec. 7 meaningless.