This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Thursday, March 27, 2014.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Bills to raise revenue are supposed to start in the U.S. House,

but the Affordable Care Act, upon arrival in the Senate, was replaced in its entirety with a

substantially different bill.

What are the constitutional implications?

We'll find out in the DC Circuit Court soon.

Tim Sandifer with Pacific Legal Foundation will argue the case.

He provides a preview.

This case challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare on the grounds

that if it is a tax, as the Supreme Court said it was what a year

and a half ago now two years ago that it is still unconstitutional because the Constitution

requires that taxes

originate in the House of Representatives, but the bill that became

Obamacare originated in the Senate.

Okay, but that seems simple enough, but the reason that Obamacare is a tax is because the Supreme Court

said it was a tax, which was after the piece of legislation had been passed.

Does that complicate what you're saying?

Not really, because what we're saying is we'll put aside any question of

whether the Supreme Court was right in that earlier decision.

We'll just assume that it's attacks and that it was always meant to be attacks.

If so, then it's unconstitutional.

...