UNCONSTITUTIONAL

hookem.gif
biggrin.gif
I35
 
cmtsip,

The argument was ruled unconstitutional. But there is a "however" and that however is it can stand as a tax, which Obama said it wasn't. All in all not much change. But there is a price to be paid for Obama having to call this a tax.
 
Very disturbing opinion. Effectively, so long as the government is using money (in the form of taxes or spending) as its weapon, there are no limitations on its power. It can use money even to accomplish unconstitutional means. (Keep in mind the Court did hold that the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause.)

Another question that should be raise is at what point does a tax effectively become coercion? From the Court's opinion, it's clear that the constitutional implications of its goal are irrelevant. Suppose the GOP wins next year and decides it's going to impose a $5 million federal tax on abortion. They aren't banning abortion. They're just imposing a tax on those who choose to have one. Under this opinion, what would be wrong with that? Can Congress ban abortion? Of course not, but according to the Chief Justice, it can't mandate that you buy health insurance either, so really, it doesn't matter what Congress has the right to do, so long as we're calling the financial imposition a "tax."

(And by the way, we can tell the public we're not levying a tax and even avoid calling it a tax in in the legislation to protect ourselves from the political implications of raising taxes, and we can walk into Court and for the first time argue that the imposition is a tax, despite all our public statements and the actual language in the statute that says the exact opposite.)

Frankly, the decision should scare you a little bit no matter where your leanings are.
 
Because this has now been clarified as being a tax issue, there are even better grounds for reversing this law under the budget reconciliation rules in the Senate, as budget issues only require 50 votes in the Senate rather than 60.

If Romney wins and the Republicans carry the Senate by even one vote (or even a tie), this law is history.
 
Re Roberts and Bush: I recall during the hearings on his appointment that the selling point was that he was not going to be a wrecking ball like Scalia and Thomas but rather would be respectful of prior practice and deferential to the executive and legislature. That is, he was not an activist but rather would give wide berth to the elected branches.

I didn't believe him at the time and scorned the idea that he would exercise restraint when he got seated.

My apologies to him: He did not let his reservations about the wisdom of the bill override his respect for the separation of powers.

What he has written is that what the ACA does is within the realm of permissible taxing authority but not within the scope of the commerce clause.

I am not a fan of the legislation or the president, but I think Roberts ruled the way he always promised he would: He did not try to take a hatchet to the long history of governmental overreach which goes back to the Louisiana Purchase and, more particularly, the war powers Lincoln assumed.

Now we will get to see if Romney can be elected and the act gutted. By a governor who was for the individual mandate before he was against it.

Who would guess Roberts would vote to uphold a plan hatched at the Heritage Foundation?
 
cmtsip, Let me ask you a question. Did the SC rule the commerce clause constitutional or not? FACT: They did rule it to be unconstitutional. Sorry if you feel FACTS = spinning.
 
As I understand it, CNN was the one that actually jumped the gun and initially announced unconstitutional, but as they read further they realized it was use of the commerce clause that was ruled unconstitutional.

My guess is that Roberts' ruling is probably going to end up looking less out of character as it's inspected further. The one thing that stands out to me though is that it seems as if the court essentially rewrote this legislation as a tax - and the discussion early on indicated that the court did not believe (rightly so) that their responsibility was to "fix" a rule, but rather to rule on it and send it back.

It would seem under that reasoning that the ruling should have been to rule it as an unconstitutional use of the commerce clause and indicate that the law would have been acceptable under congress' taxation authority. Then make congress rework it and send it back.
 
It was ruled unconstitutional (under the commerce clause). Instead, it was ruled to be legal as a tax, which of course Barack Obama vociferously insisted that it was not.

In other words, the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate is dead.

There should be no further references made to the "individual mandate," as it no longer exists.
 
I pray that Romney and co jumps on this as a tax increase on everyone, including those under $250k, and pounds Obama on this at the debates.
 
If you are counting on Romney then you guys are gonna be waiting a long time. He has zero credibility on this issue. It is his proposal from Mass. I can't help but laugh at the right. Please don't commit mass suicide, y'all are Americans too.
 
I am most troubled by the words used by Roberts and believe this is now going to open a very large door to Congress as to what they can and will levy a tax on. Someone mentioned abortions, and that my friends is only the tip of the iceberg as to what the collective minds of Congress see as a way to generate new revenues. What a shame.
 
All the Dems will have to do is show the videos of Romney say that he supports universal health care and individual mandates or post his 2009 Op-Ed in USA today and it will be over.

Republicans could have had Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and instead they nominated Obama lite but without the core convictions that Obama has.

And we wonder why the country is going to hell.
 
Other than the author being the same, I see no connection. I don't care for the decision, but I can understand that the decision was made with what I feel is no political agenda. Romney and Obama are all about agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top