The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the Court Decision
There will be lots of analysis and spin today on the Supreme Court’s decision. But here is all you need to know. The Court got the Commerce Clause part right, but so what? They were never going to find the mandate within the power of the Commerce Clause. The Court, on the other hand, disregarded the position of the government and read the law to be a tax, and therefore within the power of the Constitution.
The Good:
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
The Bad:
In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
The Ugly:
In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35. Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.
Understand that the decision to characterize the law as a tax (even though the Justice Department made the opposite argument) is not entirely outlandish. Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.
There are conservatives like Roberts obsessed with reining in courts, largely from their Roe v Wade shell shock and other 1970s opinions. Conservatives like Scalia and Thomas are more interested in enforcing constitutional limits to protect liberty.
When you hear Republican politicians warn about ”legislating from the bench,” they are using rhetoric from two decades ago when courts advanced a leftist agenda in the absence of legislative activity. The term today is as archaic as parachute pants and AMC Gremlins. These days, legislatures are passing leftist legislation that exercises unconstitutional power. In that circumstance, it is up to the courts to defend the Constitution. Today, the Court flinched from that obligation, in part because of decades of conservatives repeating the empty and now obsolete admonition against “legislating from the bench.”
Roberts may look like a fascist and he may act like a fascist, but don’t let that fool you, he really is a fascist!
So in order to avoid legislating from the bench Roberts rewrote Obamacare, including it’s foundational theory, And somehow that’s not legislating from the bench.
I wouldn’t call Roberts a fascist, but a moderate man, which signifies a progressive who wants to preserve the image of the Court as part of the neutral state: checks and balances, separation of powers in place.
He also sounds like a follower of Talcott Parsons, the echt moderate pragmatist. I wrote about this hugely influential Harvard sociologist here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/03/connecting-vs-connecting-the-dots/. Read especially the last few lines: the insanity of the moderate men is made apparent.
I always read your posts and much more often than not link to your website comments.
Thank YOU!
My first belly-laugh of the week!
Roberts is not a fascist, he is a coward. He rightly opposed the mandate, he knew what the law was, the law itself stated it was not a tax, and all the laws supporters, including Obama, publically said it was not a tax, and during oral argument most of the judges said it was not a tax, even some of the leftist ones, like Breyer, so lets now forget all that and call it a tax. He was intimidated by the concerted leftist intimidation campaign, led by Obama, to delegitimise the court if they ruled against Obamacare. The left threatened to undermine the legidimacy of the court if they didn’t get their way, and Roberts blinked.
Roberts is a coward, and a Quisling to the Constitution. He has violated his judicial oath of office, and after Romney is elected, Roberts should be impeached along with the other four justices who voted for this abomination of a legal opinion.
No he is a fascist.
@FeralCat,
You got that right!
Actually, he is neither. He is just consistent and principled. This doesn’t mean he is correct.
Look, many years ago Robert Bork wrote an article for the American Spectator, in which he argued for COnservative justicial activism. Every single letter writer attacked him.
The problem is that when we go for original intent (in this case of the income tax amendment, written by progressives, not the founders), proper judicial procedure, respect for precedent, and judicial restraint, and the Left goes for “it means what I say it means”, we are fighting with boxing gloves and they are fighting the machetes. We have progammed ourselves to lose.
How does Obama sell this to his people now?
He said it “wasn’t a tax” and his attorney and SC proved that it was.
I hate where we’re going as a country.
Just more proof that Obama is a liar. We can now expect everything else that was claimed to not be true about ACA to happen. Death Panels, The bankruptcy of the Insurance companies, all bringing us down the road to single payer. The government will control all health care, which is also what the legislation was designed to do.
he doesnt have to sell it, its already installed in your house. you have to hire someone to remove it now.
Which hopefully we’ll do this fall
Of course the 50% + of Americans who pay no Income Tax now will not have to pay this Tax either no it will be left to the MAKERS to pay for the TAKERS only more so. Of course the TAKERS still get a vote and they vote Democrat of course who then give them MORE handouts that the MAKERS get to pay for. Its a vicious SOCIALIST circle.
Welcome to European Politics America.
look at it this way:
we are all levied a ‘healthcare tax’ and those that buy conforming health insurance are given a tax credit in the same amount as the original tax.
had obama framed the law this way there would be no constitutional argument.
the sct did its job totally ideology-free. they interpreted the law as constitutional despite the awful drafting by obama. this was an easy decision once the politics are excised.
I agree that if Obama had been honest, and originally written the law as a tax, it would have had no constitutional problems. The problem with your argument is the law was NOT written that way, because Obama wanted to preserve the lie that he was not levying a tax. The court did the legislatures job, they rewrote the law, to make a clearly unconstitutional law constitutional. To me that looks like exactly what the dems claim a court repeal would have been, an activist court legislating from the bench.
The only thing I will say in Roberts defense, is he figured any decision the court made would be very disruptive, unpopular with some segment of the public, would overule the legislature, and would be interpreted as activist. He figured this way would be the least disruptive. I think he was wrong, but I can understand his thinking.
Oh come now. Obama constantly reverses his own words, and completely ignores glaring inconsistencies in his past statements, thinking nobody has heard of utube. Just look at his past statements that raising the debt ceiling is treasonous, his gov will be transparent, he will close guantonamo, using executive privaledge is wrong, obamacare would not include an individual mandate, he would bring the country together on race (while constantly calling everybody racists), 4T in debt in 8 yrs is grossly wrong (so lets raise it to 5T in 4 yrs), the Valery Plame leaks demand a special prosecutor (while his own ever worse ones do not). The MSM and his party will cover for whatever lies he tells. Why should he stop what has constantly worked for him. The only thing that will stop him is the voters, and that is only if the voters are listening to somebody other than the MSM, if they have a brain, and are not drinking the kool aid.
The 2012 version of King George’s “Stamp Tax.”
Well, let’s look at the positive side to this.
Romney needs to run hard on three issues:
1) the very bad economy
2) repeal of Obamacare
3) appointing conservative “originalist” SC judges
There is no good. There is only bad and ugly.
He means that it is good that the Justices didn’t try to reason that this didn’t violate the Commerce Clause. In that regard, he is correct. If their basis for upholding the law was that it fell under the powers of the commerce laws, there would have been no end to the buggery that would have come from our sorry law makers.
“There is no good”
No, but only the sense of “it could have been ALOT worse” if they said it was OK under commerce.
Think “Dread Scott” for the real body blow to our rights that would have been.
As Mr. Adams states: “Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional.”
The Administartion CLAIMED they had cover under Commerce, for political reasons as they wanted to avoid the Big New Tax arguement.
Thats been (thankfully) revealed for the false argument it was.
They (the court) werent deciding on the duplicious and lying nature of those pushing the law. Essentially, they punted it back to Congress.
They (congress) can, if we let them, tax us to death, and put us in deeply into debt. Thats the powers we’ve given them to act on our behalf.
That they gleefully abuse it to no end whist rubbing our faces in it, without a reasonable fear of their own lives from the resultant catastrophic bloodshed and destrution all over the land to reign them in…well, thats OUR fault.
So, the ball is now in our court, but I dont think Mittens is the Starting Center that will turn the game our way…we need some scrappy (coat-tail Tea Party) niche players to swarm the court and play like deamons.
Force the ball to the net so often, Mittens will have to deflect his own teams scoring shots if he wants to play at all.
The limits placed on the commerce clause are good, as is the limit on cooercing the states with a medicaid cutoff. But these 2 goods dont make up for the bad and ugly.
Do you miss me yet?
haha. Okay.. so it is not really funny…but still it made me laugh. But on the bright side, it did not work out so well for King George, now did it?
Miss you? You are the dipstick that appointed that Roberts traitor.
I will make two predictions after seeing the SCOTUS act today:
1) The law of unintended consequences will run rampant (and not just in healthcare);
2) If Obama is reelected in November, there will be another huge spike in gun sales.
No Blondie, only Tuco and Angel Eyes.
Is end point of the opinion then that as long as any fine is collected by the IRS, it is a tax and legal. I am so confused.
Don’t call Roberts a fascist. Just because he makes a ruling you think is bad (and I am probably in that camp) doesn’t even come close to making him a fascist.
Lets not be like a bunch of jagoff lefties.
yeah…just because he made a facist ruling giving the government almost unlimited power while limiting personal liberty, why call him a facsist?
The dem congress and Obama were the fascists, for passing the bill in the first place. Roberts is merely a coward, for not stopping them, and caving into Obama fascist bullying of the court before they decided his way.
Like most folks, the gentleman doesn’t understand what a fascist is. This is, to a large extent due to socialists/the left, defining it as politically right to avoid being fairly associated with it. Fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer, allowing the economy to be based on private ownership which is rigidly controlled by the government. It makes socialism easier to sell because the rich and powerful, and social elites, can keep their social status and wealth- even have it defended and guaranteed by the government, while the actual control remains in the hands of a socialist government.
The easy way to explain it to the benighted, not that they’ll accept it (bad feeing), is to point out that “Nazi” comes from the first syllables of the “National Socialist” full name of the National Socialist German Workers Party- the Nazi party. In German, the S of “Socializten” (sorry, totally lost my german spelling there), is pronounced as a Z.
The left, especially the MSM, do this redefining stuff all the time. Consider the hard core communists of the old USSR becoming the “right” against free market reformers. If someone else’s left makes your left look bad, redefine them. Political map of the US, color the areas voting for free markets, social responsibility, strong defense, etc. red, and the places pushing redistributionism, welfare entitlement, and government nanny statism Union Army blue.
They are so subtle, the little rats.
That’s “feeling”, not “feeing”. Sorry, I’m keyboard challenged.
Excellent points. I especially like your point about the significance of the red and blue terminology. For those of us old enough to remember, red = communist. I have had a hard time forcing myself to be on the side of the ‘red’ states. Just goes against my nature.
Good point, I always did think it would have been more appropriate for the dem states to be the red ones, and the repubs blue. I am not sure whether the MSM coloring there was just a random convention, or whether they knew what they were doing.
you are alive.
pay me now.
next, taxpayers own a lot of GM.
they are not doing well, you each need to buy a car every 3 years.
after all its just a tax.
understand this, the fed gov now can do anything it wants with your money and call it a tax.
you don’t support gay marriage?
pay your hetero-preferred tax.
so on and so forth.
Personally, I can’t wait for the new “You MUST Buy a Dozen Guns” law or pay $10K “tax” for each gun not bought. Libs are gonna love it because it’s soooo Constitutional.
I love it! Now you’re thinking outside of the box! Let’s tax people who refuse to eat bacon. Call it the affordable bacon act.
That’s my reading,just couch the activity you want to control as a tax and it survives scrutiny.
We are so very far from what the framers intended when they set up a federal system. Please read David Stewart’s “The Summer of 1787″. The founders, except Hamilton, would be absolutely dumb struck by the idiocy we witnessed today.
We need an Article 5 convention now. All three branches of the Federal government need to have their powers pruned back and power needs to be restored to the states and the people. Amendments 9 and 10 are meaningless now.
The problem with a constitutional convention is that the socialists and their useful idiots, like inJustice Roberts, would dominate it.
I agree with you. The key would be the way voting was set up. If each state had one or two votes, as in 1787, it is an idea whose time came a couple of decades ago. If it was set up so voting was based on population, the big blue states of the left coasts would turn it into a one man, one vote, one time opportunity to completely rewrite the Constitution.
Roberts logic in coming to his majority opinion has me totally confused.
Is it or is it not unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force an
individual citizen to participate in commerce? I still have no idea.
On the one hand, Robert says the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force
citizens into commercial activity against their will. This would lead one to
believe it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force individuals
into unwanted commercial transactions. Then Roberts says it is ok as long
as the Feds call it a tax. So it is unconstitutional for the Feds to force
an individual into a commercial transaction but it is ok to penalize(tax)
said individual if they refuse to enter into a commercial transaction the
Feds don’t have the constitutional authority to require?
Am I missing something?
Nope.
Roberts is a fascist in the true sense of the word.
Roberts said that a manditory purchase mandate implimented through the commerce clause was unconstitutional, while a mandate implimented through the gov taxing power is constitutional. That part is sound reasoning, since there has never been any constitutional limiting principle on the gov taxing power, other than the citizens disgust with the new taxes, and the tax code has always had various incentives to induce people to do things. And it is even a beneficial decision, since if the gov wants to mandate like this in the future, they will have to honestly call it a tax, instead of Obamas BS that it was not a tax, but a mandate. If Obama had been honest, and called it a tax from the beginning, this case would have never went to the court.
The problem with Roberts decision, was that Obama DID call it a mandate rather than a tax, and wrote the law that way. Roberts unilaterally rewrote the statute, calling an illegal mandate a legal tax. In effect, he did the legislatures job for them, and rewrote the law to make it constitutional. To me, that sounds like the very judicial activism the dems were ready to condemn if the court struck it down, the judiciary usurping the role of congress, and rewriting a law to make it like they want, instead of just striking it down, and leaving it to the legislature to fix it.
Richard, Why will they need to call it a tax? Obama didn’t?
They can call it anything they darn well please and Roberts will call it a tax.
Roberts should be flogged for this. And so should Bush for appointing his stupid butt.
And more:
from page 5 of the pdf:
“The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control. See, e.g. License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 4711 (1867).”
So now not buying something is an activity that can be taxed. Not acting is an act and can be taxed.
We’ve gone through the rabbit hole and are before the Red Queen, awaiting sentence before judgment.
Sweet! So now they can tax marijuana, crystal meth, cocaine, and heroin too! They may not get you on the drugs, but they’ll get you on the tax evasion!
This is so absurd. Name one tax, before today, based on NOT doing something. Sales taxes apply when you choose to buy something, car registration tax only if you drive a car on the public road, income tax only if you have an income, property tax only on property you actually own….
All taxes are based on doing some voluntary activity. I can’t think of any tax based on not doing something. Logic be damned, this ruling is positively Orwellian: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others….
If the Dems win in November, I predict the next tax will $1,000 per person for failing to buy any new book by Obama….
Well, two can play that game. So I propose if Romney wins, a $10,000 tax for not owning a functional firearm, and a $100 per month tax for not going to the range to practice with it. Along with a $25 per day tax for not listening to Rush’s full show every day.
I sympathise with your desire to limit gov, but your reasoning is wrong here. Implimwnting the mandate through a tax is not taxing inactivity. Instead, it is taxing everybody, which the gov can do, and then allowing you to avoid the tax, by doing what they want, getting insurance. The gov has these sorts of taxes combined with an offsetting deduction in the code all the time, and their is ample precedent for their constitutionality. If Obama had been honest, and done the mandate through this tax approach, it never would have gone to court. But Obama wanted to preserve the claim he was not passing a tax, and instead wrote the bill as an individual mandate.
The problem with Roberts decision is Obama did NOT call it a tax, he called it an unconstitutional personal mandate, justified by the commerce clause, and wrote the law that way. So Roberts real error, was he did the job the legislature should have done, and rewrote the law to change the illegal mandate, to a legal tax. That is the very judicial activism (doing something that only the legislature should do, correcting a bad law by rewriting it, instead of striking it down and letting the legislature fix it and pass it again), that the dems were prepared to charge him with if he just did the correct constitutional approach, and strike down the whole law.
The conservative dissenters said exactly that, and they were right.
The Good?
No Economic Recovery before the Election.
Possibly an acceleration into the Double Dip we were headed for.
JD. Correct. It’s time for business people to strat laying people off, and telling them that if the election in Nov produces a desired effect, ie: O is sent packing, then the we might hire you back
In citing the the constitutionality of the mandate as a tax in its decision:
“And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct…”
The Court is referencing the IRS Code?
the IRS Code is the basis for asserting constitutionality ?
Sure ! Exactly !
The IRS code has been our second “constitution”, ever since 1913.
As of today’s ruling, it has become the first. (Missed the century mark by a year!)
To all those here claiming Roberts is a fascist: I don’t know, but I feel ever so certain that the originators of modern fascism, Wilson in the 10′s, and Mussolini in the 20′s, would be right proud of him!
Forget the Romans, 2000 years ago, where the Lictors carried ‘fasces”, bundles of sticks tied together barely concealing a battle axe, blade protruding, to symbolize that collectively the Republic would be strong and capable of self-defense, whereas anybody not chosen, who would pretend to individual rights, just might get the axe, literally!
They got the axe, 2000 years ago. We get the “tax”. I discern some slight measure of progress, concerning mankind. All quiet on the Western Front? Well, then, move on! Nothing to see, here!
Given the Commerce Clause and the Taxation Clause, they can do anything to us. Anything.
Which means we really don’t have any rights.
Which means we can defend ourselves only at the ballot box.
Of course if you don’t vote for Obama at the ballot box, you will be taxed. That’s perfectly OK in Roberts-land.
“Which means we can defend ourselves only at the ballot box”
Fix that typo Paul!…need a “u” and an “e” in “ballot”
If there was ever a reason to not sit on the side lines and actually get involved with this election, today’s ruling just gave you one.
I like seeing (sometimes posting) smart and witty posts on the conservative blogs that support our side with facts and logical resoning. But that’s not going to be enough to oust this guy from the WH. This is serious. Find a local TEA party chapter and really get involved, especially if you live in a swing state.
God help us…
Now we really are walking down the yellow brick road.
I will make two predictions based on the SCOTUS ruling this morning:
1) The law of unintended consequences will spiral out of control and doom us to a life of miserable additional taxation;
2) There will be a big spike in gun sales in early November if Obama wins re-election.
Well, I do think this will be a call to conservatives all over the country to stand and fight this, just like “Remember the Alamo.” This issue was a big loser for Obama in 2010 and I don’t see why it’s going to get any better for him in 2012. Also, if the only reason ObamaCare survived is because now the mandate is being called a “tax,” then Obama has the dubious honor of passing the largest tax in American history. I’m sure that’s really going to go over big with the American people as well. This is a bad day, but I think Obama is going to have an even worse day on Election Day as a result of this. And don’t feel down about this, America. Just remember that George Washington lost more battles than he won, yet he went on to win the Revolutionary War. There is hope. Count on it AND the American people to do the right thing in the end.
So what if Obama loses (and that’s still a big if)? No way will the GOP get enough senators elected to overcome a Dem filibuster. We’re stuck with Obamacare now until the day the country keels over.
Ahh… But it is a tax, the SC said so. And I read elsewhwere today that votes on taxes cannot be filibustered.
This next election is about nothing more and nothing less then freedom. Voting for a Democrat on any level of government is voting for enslavement.
Helloooo!
Tax issues in the Senate cannot be filibustered!
Also, if you don’t pay the fee for the insurance, the government gets the (lower cost) tax “penalty” and the insurance companies go bust. How long before the insurance companies are telling “our” representatives to abolish the law? Like, tomorrow?
Two points:
Tax legislation cannot be filibustered!
Insurance companies, which were strong-armed into supporting this legislation, and were allowed to write the provisions as payment, will be paid the “mandate” that people voluntarily pay, while they will not be paid the “tax” penalty, which goes into the general treasury. They will be taking money from the aged, infirm, those with “prior conditions”, while the healthy will pay the (much lower)tax. BIG moneyloser! Thus, they will be the first to lobby “our” representatives to repeal same.
Do you really think the “American people” will have any real impact on this? 47% of Americans already don’t pay any federal taxes. Why should they care about extra taxes for health care?
Most of that 47% vote infrequently. They can be overcome.
Obama insisted with all his might in 2009 that the mandate wasn’t a tax
In 2008, he said…
“A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance…” and went on to say that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home.
Au contraire, lefty judicial activism is still very much alive and well, as demonstrated by the court-ordered imposition of same-sex marriage and the ruling against Prop. 8 in California.
I’m sorry, but I see this as a win….in the long term.
Roberts did say no to the Mandate. The Fed could already tax you for anything they wanted (think Social Security). So No New Power; which is what Obama really wanted.
Roberts also said the Fed could not blackmail the States into bankrupting themselves with the Medicaid part of the opinion.
So, by doing what he did, Roberts took the opportunity to enshrine in Case Law that the Feds DO Not have the right to force you to buy something. He did overtune the Mandate.
Wrong. If Congress wants you to buy a GM car, it will simply order you to do so or pay a $15,000 “tax” if you don’t. Different words, but the same effect.
People who don’t work don’t pay taxes into Social Security…& that’s a lot of non-taxpaying non-workers. If you breathe, you’re now a taxpaying participant in Obamacare.
Isn’t this Administration already punishing states, i.e. Texas via EPA, CO via decrease in funding for fighting fires, LA he ignored a Federal Judge after the BP Oil Spill…they cannot withhold Medicaid but they can and have punished States in other ways, can you say Arizona after the SB1070 ruling?
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/27/day-5-of-waldo-canyon-fire-evacuation-blaze-engulfs-homeshistoric-ranch-32k-total-evacuated-more-dangerous-winds-heat-ahead/
I agree. Roberts did what he believed in. While Thomas and the rest were absolutely correct in saying that the law was unconstitutional by the sheer audacity of it, Roberts’ position is very correct, as it was with the campaign finance reform act. It is NOT the job of the Court to fix bad legislation passed by elected officials. They aren’t the final say.
If you don’t like the law then fire the idiots who passed it. That was Roberts’ message. The Left doesn’t realize just how pissed off he made the Right by not fixing the Left’s overreach.
He also drove a couple of stakes through the heart of the HHS mandate by not allowing for them to punish out of compliance states WHICH WILL HAPPEN!
And he made sure every person with half a brain now realizes the Dems lied when they said it wasn’t the largest tax increase in our history.
Yes, it would have been better and easier to just call a duck a duck and turn it back, but Roberts doesn’t come from that particular area of the law.
He thinks it is his job just to make sure the Congress doesn’t overstep. If you remember, the SP said the campaign finance law was constitutional, BUT then overturned it when the first case came up from a person being harmed by it.
Weird huh. Freaking lawyers. All they really care about is the argument.
I agree factually with what you said and I agree the law on this level is frustrating (to say the least).
Since you addressed the political, I will, too. Suppose for a minute that Roberts had simply overturned the Mandate and turned it back to Congress to ‘fix’. There would be screaming and yelling about the racist, political court. Then they would galvanize the Democrat base with it and continue the class and race warfare all the way to November. If they won….they would simply say “okay it IS a tax” and inact it anyway.
Roberts by doing what he did a) kept them from using the SC as an issue to run against b) established that it IS a HUGE tax (not a fine or a penalty) and c) fast forwarded the truth of the issue so it can be dealt with BEFORE the election instead of after.
(Since I made my first post I have actually read the opinions. Roberts systematically boxed in the Commerse Clause so it can never be used again by a dictator for the purpose Obama tried to use it for. He plucked it like you would pluck petals from a daisy till there was nothing left to use again. He also made it so they can’t put you in jail for not having insurance.Bloomeberg may be able to ban soft drinks, but the Feds can’t. They can tax it like they do cigarettes, but they can’t ban it.)
If the people want the power, they have it now. But, will they use it or will they prostitute themselves yet again for government freebies? We’ll see.
So, if it’s a tax, why didn’t the anti-injunction act apply? Since the tax hasn’t been collected, no injury, no issue, no standing for the case. And at what level does the tax become too high that there really is no choice? A tax equal to the cost of the current gold plated health care premium per month, say eight hundred dollars, or an additional 9600 dollar federal tax liability for a single individual? Of course, since it’s now a tax, that will get gamed with all sorts of exemptions under the rubric of progressive tax rates based on the ability to pay. Looks like a New Deal WPA program for lawyers and corporate health care, and an expanded IRS. So, Pelosi, the Italian Mare, “Are you serious?” was right all the time, hey? The Peoples Congress can do whatever the hell it wants to do to make life better for you.
Just got finished reading part II, and it appears that the AIA doesn’t apply because it’s labeled a “penalty” and not a “tax”, even though part III starts out with “thus the law may be upheld as a tax.”
It’s that bad.
This is all I need to know about the decision? Hardly.
Court: It’s a tax if we say it’s a tax, so there. Obama’s lackeys originally insisted it wasn’t a tax. But what do they know? We know better.
People: You’re hoppin’ around like a kangaroo. And since when has the hairy-legged lesbian vote been a determinant of anything? Equally to the point, why should it be? And why should we go along?
Roberts isn’t actually saying it’s a good law, of course, just that it’s legal.
Well, yeah, until repealed or the bombs burst in air again. Meantime, as an all-around example of chickenshit behavior, this court will, as they say, be long remembered.
The unraveling has only just begun.
Which means we can defend ourselves only at the ballot box.
ROFL!!!
Right. Between illegal voters, packed ballot boxes, and thugs with clubs in front of polling centers do you really think that your vote counts? And even if you do manage to vote in a district or state whose elections are utterly corrupt, who will you vote for? Republicans? Why, because they are so different than Democrats? Not so much from my vantage point.
The only real solution is to grab all you can before the party is over. If all power is centralized then ally yourself with that power in order to divert some of the money that flow to DC and then back out as enlightened bureaucrats determine what you really need. After all, each according to their abilities, each according to their needs works very well-if you are a party member.
No, no, I don’t think so. Instead of being selfish and “grabbing what you can”, or being cynical and saying, “Right. Between illegal voters, packed ballot boxes, and thugs with clubs in front of polling centers do you really think that your vote counts?”, we can take this fight to the ballot box in the biggest way we can, libertarians and Conservatives and all of us, going the distance.
I think by 2012 will be a repeat of 2010, only in the Senate and the presidency.
of course, if they do steal it, we’ll know what to do. Why worry about that? We’ll not live forever, whether we want to or not.
An Préachán
Because too many people want all the free stuff they were promised to throw out the people promising free stuff. Is that cynical or just being a realist?
And even if your prediction about 2012 is correct, so what? Obamacare will not be eliminated nor will private market alternatives be adopted. Minor tweaks around Obamacare will be made but the power and money flowing to DC from a takeover of such a huge part of the US economy means that nothing fundamental will change.
Face it. You and I are subjects. The only question now is whether we will make the most of it or be smashed in a hopelessly quixotic effort to recreate a federal government of enumerated powers. For my and my family, I will do what it takes for them to survive and prosper. Screw everyone else. Cynically manipulating leftards is pretty easy–just imagine projects that have no hope of success but have great “feel good” messages. Gather up lots of money to pursue those efforts and stash the resulting money in something like German Mark (which I predict will make a comeback soon) or Swiss Francs offshore and laugh all the way to the resort.
For the first time, this damn thing called Obamacare has been defined, and accepted by all branches, as a TAX. Taxes can be repealed. This tax will be repealed. The opportunity this presents to the Tea Party is momentous as an opportunity to further define ITSELF.
Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are responsible, as it turns out, for the largest TAX INCREASE IN U.S. HISTORY. That is what Mitt and the Repubs are going to be able to get elected on w/ the support of TEA PARTIERS and the like. Today is a bad day, but trust me, you will be so pumped to vote in November…
you are naive, perception is reality, just as the press have distributed the perception that Obama is an intelligent statesman seeking to do what is best for the poor minorities and working people, they will vilify and defame anyone who fights against their agenda, Tea party, republican, Romney, whoever will be insane, radical, racist, kooks.
To change the country, we have to change the press, to change the press we have to change the universities. How do you think we got into this mess? Look at what the radical leftists did in the 60′s and 70′s, except it will be 100 times harder to root them out of power positions than it would have been to just keep them out in the first place.
Get this through your thick head: You have no right to engage in violence without first exhausting all nonviolent options. If you start a rebellion because you don’t even want to try to win the election, you will be shot as a traitor and go to Hell for murder.
So, if I understand this relative to the commerce clause, a mandate to buy insurance would be unconstitutional as would a mandate to buy brocolli. However, since obamacare is a tax, I guess we can look forward to a brocolli tax.
Broccoli is already taxed (by states, at least). What this decision allows is for the government to give you the following choice: buy a certain amount of broccoli (and prove to the IRS that you have done so), or add $X to your federal tax liability. They claim that this is not an unprecedented violation of freedom (or, in their terms, expansion of government power), because taxation is already one of their powers. But, the result is that, in principle, they can use this power to compel any behavior they want (by setting the tax liability high enough). While there may be more political checks on such mischief than there are on the plenary powers, that is very thin gruel indeed.
“The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation”
I currently pay around $14,000 per year for health insurance for my small family. If I understand the above text, then it would make sense for me not to have insurance and pay the tax and then when I really need it, since I couldn’t be turned down for coverage, to get it at that point.
I am sure that this reasoning is being repeated thousands of times as I am typing this.
There is nothing good in this.
Roberts could have killed the whole thing voting 5-4 with Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. This was an unforced error.
We have to rethink Roberts completely — he has demonstrated that when the chips are down, he’s untrustworthy.
He should be sent to Coventry and completely ostracized.
My head just exploded.
So, now the Federal government can tax all Americans to the point of poverty, where they will need food stamps, housing assistance, and unemployment assistance.
Does the poverty threshold now get readjusted? Is this called a “reverse stimulus”?
I think we need to stage a protest by throwing medical supplies and health insurance plans into the Potomac.
Don’t dump medical supplies – black robes.
They are for burning.
If you LIKE your DEATH PANEL, you can KEEP your DEATH PANEL — until Nov. 6th! Employer’s won’t hire, stocks are tanking — all signs point to a total defeat of Obama if not Obamacare.
Which means we can defend ourselves only at the ballot box.
I think you need to be more specific. In particular, we have one last chance to defend ourselves at the ballot box. That’s it. If Obama’s reelected, he’ll use everything in his power during the next 4 years to increase the percentage of the electorate that’s permanently dependent on government handouts to over 50%.
Once that happens, the ballot box is useless. Permanently. Bye-bye Republic.
Which is why it’s now EVERY convervative’s solemn duty to convert every single undecided voter that he or she knows to vote against ALL Democrat candidates, not only this November, but EVERY November to come for a full generation. That’s the only way these arrogant leftists will ever learn.
Spread the word. We have to CRUSH the Left like bugs this November.
So it stands, I just want to know how they are going to pay for it? Taxes will have to be raised to crushing levels and the economy will crater, leading to more unemployment and less tax revenue. It also is a disincentive to work, especially for taxable wages. I did a quick experiment using Kaiser’s ACA premium calculator. For an income of $100,000 and a family of four, the estimate was a premium of $24,000. If you figure on taxes of $40,000 (state, local, federal), that leaves me $36,000 for everything else. What the hell is the point of working?
My bet is that folks will scale back on their salaried work and where possible work under the table or set up legal structures where they contract their work and expense their health premiums. As an IT contractor, I’ve been working on a W2 basis, but this will probably push me into a 1099 and incorporation.
Lawyers and accountants will make a bundle advising people on the best strategies – there must be a million loopholes.
This will absolutely kill small businesses.
health insurance premium. You might be surprised at how much larger it is than the new maximum yearly tax for not having any health insurance — namely $3,800. Remember, if you suddenly get sick and need lots of health care, the insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay for pre-existing conditions.
If the mandate is interpreted as just being a tax, then not having health insurance is not a crime. It looks to me like those who have no immediate need for expensive medical care can now consider themselves insured against expensive bouts of bad health — catastrophic health events, if you will — for no more $3,800 a year.
You make it sound like a bargain.
News Flash:
$3800 a year is TEN PERCENT for someone who earns $38,000…
Then add the 28% income tax that a typically younger single person at the salary level pays, and youre up to 38% in taxes….
Then add state local and city taxes (Philadelphia’s city wage tax is 5% alone, before the state) and youre up to 48-55% in taxes before you’ve even bought your first bag of groceries.
Mandatory $3800 is no bargain for your average person AT ALL. That 3800 could be a viable car, tuition, business investment (couple of new computers? Down payment on some tools?)for someone trying to GET financially stable in their career/life, while they’re still young and healthy.
The only way to make this worthwhile, is to GET SICK ON PURPOSE.
Its like the scam of extra fee’s for the warranty on an appliance purchase at a Big Box store…given the odds, its NEVER in you best interests to buy it.
For some folks, maybe, but with this law you have no choice.
Aw, poor baby. Tax raises, who would have thought? Just like Bush…only this time to fund something Americans actually need rather than two wars (one of which was entirely pointless).
Well, compared to real, live health insurance at anywhere from $1000 to as much as $2000 a month, depending on where in the Country you happen to be, $3800 a year is a REAL bargain. Of course, that’s the whole idea; get everybody to ditch real HI and go to CommieCare.
Not New here folks.Since FDR the feds have had the power to make us buy or do any damn thing they wanted but up until now it was not good practice to say it out loud as the 09 congress has done here.I really think this is going to be the “BIG PISSOFF” moment we have all expected to inflame the silent majority into action. See you on Nov 6th. If we are wrong in this,so be it. I hear the Caymens are nice most all year round and cheap too.
Finally! Yes, you are right. We started losing this fight with FDR, then LBJ and then little by little. I know everyone thinks we are just living on the Constitution but we are not. It is Constitution plus Case Law. It was Case law that allowed the FDR junk which allowed the LBJ junk; like plaque in your arteries. That’s what the Court had to work with.
RIP Federalism! The idea of limiting the power of central government through checks and balances and the separation of powers had a nice run but now it’s over. Not a bad idea when you think about it. Now more power will migrate to Washington (if that’s possible) and the entrenched bureaucracy will continue to grow like a 1950′s sci-fi monster. Well it was fun while it lasted.
Perhaps the House should attach a proviso to every bill that the individual mandate is not a tax and was never to be interpreted as a tax. Of course Obama would never sign it even if it made it through the Senate unless, of course, it was a bill that provided funds for WH parties and fuel for Air Force One. Then what?
My anger is throbbing in my veins, I had hoped that SCOTUS would bail us out of this terrible law. The alternative of killing a portion and leaving the rest to squirm on the table probably would be worse. Was there insufficient votes to repeal the entire law – who knows. I am not mad at SCOTUS, they in the long run may be right.
My fury is boiling over with the One and all of the D’s that voted for O’Care and Dodd-Frank – another horrible bill. My goal is to work my hardest to defeat this November every member that voted for this assault on our liberty. We really need more than 55 senators to effectively have a chance at repeal.
The fight is only beginning.
Out: Mitt (That’s the hous I’m running for the Senate) Romney!
IN: Mitt (I’ll Repeal Obamacare on Day 1) Romney!
This has Galvinized me!
“The fight is just beginning.”
The ways to dodge the “tax” are just beginning…thank God. Since the magic number of workers is “more than 50,” perhaps a company w/90 employees will become 2 companies w/42 & 48 employees. Now THAT’S the American way!
Actually, that is the French way. France has a lot of businesses fractured into different companies with a limited [42?] number of employees.
Roberts is clever, perhaps too clever by half, but very, very clever.
He seems to have folded like a desk chair and given the Left what it wants, but in reality, he’s set Bam up for a huge fall. Thanks to Roberts, Bam has given us the biggest middle-class tax ever–a H.U.G.E. transfer of money from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, all that, regardless of whether they could pay it or not, regardless of income level or not. Also, the Bamster looks like a liar, “This is not a tax,” yeah, right. Tell that to the Supremes.
Wow, people will go spastic. Those who don’t pay taxes, wow, it’ll be like a two-by-four upside the head. They won’t shrug it off, as was suggested above.
Also, as Daniel Henniger said, this Obamacare garbage is SO yesterday. Backward, awkward…stupid.
Let me tell you, I’m getting apolitical friends sametiming me about a rise in taxes, etc.
I won’t say Roberts did this intentionally, but I bet he did. He’s given the election to Romney (but what Rombo will do with it, I shudder).
So chill out.
The fight is just beginning.
An Préachán
No. I disagree. While the results may pan out exactly as you describe them, I dun think Roberts did this to help or hurt either candidate. He simply decided as his own view of jurisprudence guided him to, consequences be damned. =’[.]‘=
Mr. Adams now that the court has ruled it a tax, is it a permissible tax? Virtually every federal tax but for income has no excemptions. There are no excempt classes from paying excise taxes. No one who has any form of ordinary income is excempt from FICA taxes. So is this like the income tax where certain classes are excempted and thus pay no or little tax (or even get a tax credit) or is it like an excise tax? Also is a future congress prohibited from raising the penalty-tax to a level so burdemson that paying the tax (the insurance purchase) is less burdemsome than the penalty-tax incurred for not buying it?
My understanding is the penalty tax will be less burdensome than buying insurance. I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to paying the tax as “the insurance purchase.” If you purchase insurance, that money goes to the insurance company, not the government, so it’s not a tax.
That is a damn good point. I thought that only the feds, states, counties and municipalities could levy and collect taxes. How did the health insurance companies become tax collectors?
I don’t like this decision, but I can’t say I find the judges’ decision some sort of flagrant violation of their mandate. They must decide constitutionality based on what is constitutional, not on what they like. The problem is the law itself, and the villans here, if there are any, are those who wrote it — not the judges. They *explicitly* state that the mandate is in effect a tax.
Roberts verbiage is meaningless. Mere dicta. He in fact negated the commerce clause by declaring a penalty a tax. He also made it clear that the ability to tax is unlimited.
Quite wrong actually: What the author calls “The Good” in this ruling, is in fact, its worst aspect; for it reveals the Chief Justice as a shallow opportunist who does not understand either logic or the law.
In establishing the ACA’s mandate as obtaining from Congress’s Constitutional authority to tax, a rationale must exist for the program for which the tax is being raised within the enumerated powers set forth in the Constitution. That justification cannot itself be the authority to tax, otherwise there would be no need for a Constitution in the first place: merely having the authority to tax would justify anything. That is why the machinery of the Commerce Clause was invoked by liberals to begin with.
Robert’s “thinking” on this issue is devoid of any serious logic; and far from being “The Good,” he has actually handed the Left the largest blank check in the history of the (now defunct) Republic. No law which levies a tax may now be considered Unconstitutional even if its actual purpose is Unconstitutional.
Think I’m exaggerating? I’m not. In the ruling, Roberts acknowledges that the Congress cannot justify this act on the basis of the Commerce Clause; there is therefore no Constitutional basis for the Act other than Congress’ own authority to raise taxes.
Now, the Deluge. America: RIP.
Absolutely right! Good assessment!
Originally, Congress’ powers to tax were limited to taxes collected in furtherance of any of its enumerated powers. For anything else, it was expressly intended that they have no powers, neither to legislate, nor to tax.
The trouble started with the income tax constitutional amendment of 1913. Beginning then, they had the power to tax, period. This is the crux of Roberts’ screwy ruling; this, and case law since then. Essentially, any form of tax for any purpose under the sun is OK, just so long as it is not in reference to any enumerated powers which are not mentioned. — Forgotten, however, are the 9th and 10th amendments, observance of which would re-limit Congress to its enumerated powers, tax or no tax. There too, however, a lax disposition of case law is likely to have eroded the full sense and meaning of the 9th and 10th. — So there we have it, a broken Constitution!
A tax that isn’t a tax but is a tax? Hmmmm…if I am not mistaken, isn’t the technical term for this sort of thing bait and switch?
Just keep in mind, any time in history that total taxes, including income, capital, exise, hidden, Federal, State, Local rises to 33% of GNP, an armed rebellion by the TAXED HAS OVERTHROWN THE GOVERNMENT.
I think that is where we are headed. It may be that the next step is to throw out the bums. Right now government seems to work by mob rule. I don’t see how replacing one mob with another will help in the long run. The long term solution may be to replace the current constitution with one that has much more explicit limits on the role of federal government.
And you’re game for a Constitutional Convention the delegates to which are elected by the same people who elected Comrade Obama?
Imagine the convention controlled by one party while Congress was controlled by the other. Then while Congress passed new laws the convention could insert clauses into the new constitution making them unconstitutional. Think this sounds far-fetched? It was the situation in Ecuador a few years ago. I stopped following their politics after selling the Ecuadoran-influenced stock I owned, so don’t know how it turned out — they may still be fighting it out for all I know.
Also, the supreme court and the trial lawyers’ lobby have a sweet gig under the current set-up. Somehow I suspect that, try as they might, citizens who attempt to set up a new constitutional convention would soon discover that lawyers in general and the supreme court in particular were always finding ways to stymie their efforts.
If health care is a right, how can you excercise that right without infringing on the rights of someone else? For anyone to receive health care, a doctor/practitioner must give up their time and property to treat you for your care. If you have a right to care, then you must be infringing on the doctors right to life & liberty (free choice) to provide that care. The choice to provide that care is a right of the doctor (he has every right to freely choose whether to work and provide care). Any medical staff who refuses to work (provide care) will now be declared as violating someone’s right to care. And if Health Care is a right, why would you have to pay for something that is rightfully yours?
EXACTLY!
Here is something I wrote a couple of years ago about this whole fiasco.
http://tinyurl.com/2avwpol
Isn’t it an odd tax which only applies to people who don’t do what they’re told? I always thought that defined “penalty”. How foolish of me.
Equal protection must be one of those antique, out-of-fashion concepts in Law, today. Y’know. Like Constitutionality meaning “supported by the Constitution”.
How quaint!
How do I get a job on one of those death panels? I know some people who were mean to me when I was in high school. Ooooh, that’ll teach ‘em!
Chief Justice Roberts decision on Obamacare has just cost the Federal judiciary it’s independence.
good point. In the name of preverving the courts integrity and independence, Roberts has actually surrendered it. Now the left knows that anytime the court may make a decision they dont like, where all 4 leftist judges are against it, they can just bully the court with threats of the dire consequences of a 5-4 decision, and they know the court will cave into the pressure.
I’ll give it one more chance at the ballot box. If the American people decide that Obama and the welfare state are what they stand for, then I’m going to become a teat-sucking nightmare. I will become as unproductive as possible. I will grab every government freebie I can get my hands on and make the Feds foot the bill for my existence to the greatest extent possible. Of course, being a fully-employed, fully-insured, white, middle-aged male, I may have to compete for a seat at the free picnic. But I’ll do what I can. I don’t want just Medicare and Social Security. I want it all! And the Government’s going to give it to me! Yay!
Sorry, I should have said “a fully-employed, fully-insured, white, middle-aged male with delusions of self-sufficiency.” Silly me, I need to abandon the antiquated belief that my fellow citizens are not responsible for my care and feeding.
Individual tax burden has just increased by an additional one: 1) visible taxes (IRS and everything in the 87,000 page Tax Code, 2) invisible (everything else not in the Tax Code)3) New ACA Tax and lastly, 4)”Death Tax.”
This SCOTUS award, to the DNC, Democratic Party will most certainly energize a crumbling DNC election re-election strategy. In order for conservatives to overcome this energized DNC, actual voter turnout for 2012 Presidential elections will necessarily have to increase over 2008 actual voter turnout by some additional 8 to 10 million, minimum.
Actual numbers of voter turnout by catagory for 2008 elections
2008
1)White…101,208,519
2)Black…16,050,105
3)Hispanic.9,815,767
4)Asian….3,316,137
Assumptions:2012 actual voter turnout
1)White… 99,184,340
2)Black… 19,420,627
3)Hispanic.15,410,722
4)Asian…. 4,808,398
Assumption: November 2012 Electoral
Total Votes (Obama Wins)
2012
Total Eligible …231,229,580
Total Actual……138,822,000
Answer: 6,144,000 increase in voter turnout in Black, Hispanic and Asian voter catagories will favor Obama.
Actual numbers of Eligible voters and actual total numbers of voter turnout.
2008
Total Eligible…231,229,580
Total Actual…..132,645,504
Conclusion (factual)
1)White category has evidenced a single digit decline in percentage erosion of Total Voter Turnout over the past decade (1998-2008) even though increasing numerical values over the same period.
2)Black category has evidenced a steady, single digit increase in percentage participation of Total Voter Turnout over the past decade while doubling numerical values over the same period.
3)Hispanic category has evidenced an explosive double digit increase in percentage participation of Total Voter Turnout over the past decade while tripling numerical values over the same period.
4)Asian category has evidenced an explosive double digit increase in percentage participation of Total Voter Turnout over the past decade while tripling numerical values over the same period.
Suggested actions:
Only way this swell of Obama supporters in Black, Hispanic and Asian category’s to be equaled or excelled is for an increase in white catagory of at least 8 million voter turnouts (or more), possibly 10 million.
Without this swelling of support for the GOP candidate in the White catagory…based on current figures, Chicago-style electoral thuggery currently underway will be successful. God Bless America. Amen. Vote.
I know what’s ugly about it. The fact that I’m currently on a high deductible health saving plan for my heath insurance coverage. I currently pay about $1100 a year into that plan. Obamacare is going to kill off my HSA and it’s likely my employer will dump me into the state exchange. Using the calculator that is currently linked off of the Drudge site I see that my annual premiums will be between $2500-$3000. I just flat out can’t afford that, this whole thing is gonna bankrupt me.
… and it isn;t about health care in the first place, It is about control.
who works for who? apparently you work for the government.
On the bright side, some good verbiage in the dissenting opinion:
“If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, ‘the hideous monster whose devouring jaws … spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.’”
Our take here: http://ohpcenter.org/resources/writings.php?nav=20120628a
Thank you Mr. Adams; you bring your legal skills to point out the essence of the ruling. Justice Roberts did also. He said that the SC’s job was not to rule on whether the law was idiotic, but whether it stayed within Constitutional limits. It is ruled a tax, which puts a lie to Obama’s pledge to only tax the wealthy. He, and the Dems have levied a huge tax on the middle class. That dodge died this morning. It will be a central issue in the campaign. Obamacare is a tax, a biggie.
What I have not read is any limits on this new Congressional power to tax. If Judge Scalia is correct, Congress can tax anyone who does not buy broccoli. It is an unlimited power, which, of course politicians will claim, is not a tax.
Whenever a politician wants your money but claims he is not imposing a tax, run for the hills.
America got cold truth this morning.
it is not a tax. that is a convoluted attempt to fraudulently make it acceptable.
how can a grown educated adult convince himself that this is a tax and that it is constitutional?
there is no law left in the USA
……..
There never has been any limit on gov taxing authority, and my readong of the constitution is there isn’t one. the power to tax, is the power to destroy, or compell. The only limit on the gov taxing authority is the peoples disgust with the new taxes.
The problem with the Roberts decision is Obama did NOT have the guts to call it a tax, he called it an illegal mandate instead, and wrote the law that way, in an effort to decieve the people. Roberts then usurped the legislative role, to do what Obama and his dem congress should have done in the first place, and rewrote the law himself to turn the unconstitutional mandate, into a constitutional tax.
Of course, since Obama now publically supports this decision, he now has to call it a tax too, and his fraud is now exposed.
Andrew:
“Boehner should … leave the strategizing to Issa.”
Sheesh! That’s exactly what Beohner has been doing throughout this process.
You, of all people, should recognize that the contempt citation is not the endgame here. Issa, himself, has been scrupulously trying to avoid precipitating a full blown political circus, because he knows that it could, in fact, derail his investigation. His approach has been methodical and incremental, because he is determined to lay DoJ’s smoking gun out on the table, so that the actual evidence cannot be spun away.
So, I’d suggest that you leave the strategizing to Issa too.
Conservatives’ feel-good, knee-jerk, righteous indignation over Boehner’s putative cowardice fully qualifies them for membership in the stupid party too. It’s like watching a bragging rights competition over who has the worst tin ear for politics, in a game called… Politics. Boehner is no Tea Party Republican, but he’s given his Freshmen Members more influential seats at the table than any Speaker in the history of the House. I’m all for keeping the fires lit, but give him a little credit. We’re fighting a long war, and he is not the enemy.
Christian:
“The Court got the Commerce Clause part right, but so what?”
So what? This is huge, no matter how you look at it: The Commerce Clause is the very horse that liberals rode in on! It’s the girl they brought to the dance. It is the sword they turned into their plowshares. It is the very heart and soul of statist expansion. The Court has just flipped the coin to taxation. Remind me about which party owns that issue?
If nothing else, this ruling makes it clear that Congressional elections are absolutely co-equal with the presidential contests. It may be politically expedient to tag this bill as Obamacare, but we should never forget that it is, in fact, Pelosicare. Congress does have the power to tax us. Taxes originate in the House.
Roberts understands the long war, in a way that putative conservatives apparently do not. The Commerce Clause is not a suicide pact. There are limits to the strings that the Feds can attach to funding. A tax is a tax is a tax by any name. How many tea leaves does it take for conservatives to get the message?
Christian:
“The Court got the Commerce Clause part right, but so what?”
So what? This is huge, no matter how you look at it: The Commerce Clause is the very horse that liberals rode in on! It’s the girl they brought to the dance. It is the sword they’ve turned into plowshares. It is the heart and soul of statist expansion. The Court has just flipped the coin to taxation. And who owns that issue?
If nothing else, this ruling makes it clear that Congressional elections are co-equal with the presidential contests. We may have tagged this bill Obamacare, but we should never forget that it is, in fact, Pelosicare. Congress does have the power to tax us. Taxes originate in the House, and we can duke that out district by district, every two years. Even in California, where presidential electors are dyed deep blue, you can still send a Republican to Capitol Hill.
Roberts understands the long war, in a way that putative conservatives apparently do not. The Commerce Clause is not a suicide pact. There are limits to the strings that the Feds can attach to funding. A tax is a tax is a tax by any other name. How many tea leaves does it take for conservatives to get the message?
That’s what you get, PJMedia, for not providing a Preview Window!
To everyone else, apologies for inadvertently pasting multiple drafts in the comment box. Takes double dipping a whole new level.
The Court got the Commerce Clause part right, but so what?”
So what? This is huge, no matter how you look at it: The Commerce Clause is the very horse that liberals rode in on! It’s the girl they brought to the dance. It is the sword they turned into their plowshares. It is the very heart and soul of statist expansion. The Court has just flipped the coin to taxation. Remind me about which party owns that issue?
If nothing else, this ruling makes it clear that Congressional elections are absolutely co-equal with the presidential contests. It may be politically expedient to tag this bill as Obamacare, but we should never forget that it is, in fact, Pelosicare. Congress does have the power to tax us. Taxes originate in the House.
Nonsense. The Court today didn’t roll back commerce clause jurisprudence one centimeter. All it did was avert a total catastrophe. We are still in a Lopez, Wickard, Morrison world. Nothing changed today.
“The Court today didn’t roll back commerce clause jurisprudence one centimeter.”
Exactly!!!
If using the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional for the case of ObamaCare, as Robert’s asserts, then its use must have been equally unconstitutional in at least some of the previous cases that have come before the SCOTUS. But no one is going to go back and revisit anything. Everything that the progressives have accomplished using the Commerce Clause as their blunt instrument of choice, still remains in place. And looking ahead to the future, there is nothing in Roberts’ opinion that will prevent progressives from trying to use it again anyway.
As for the ACA itself, not one line of this 2000+page law has been altered.
And as far as future legislation goes, who needs the Commerce Clause anymore when the power to tax gives you all of the same coercive powers?
Taxing us for not doing something? The Congress has always been able to do that. It is just that for a congress person to say so outright would have been political suicide. But if ObamaCare is seen as a morally good and proper thing to do by a large enough percentage of the voting population, this might set a new precedent for what the voters will accept as normal; after which, the stigma of using the tax laws as a coercive tool to replace the Commerce Clause goes away.
Coming up next, a $10,000 tax on all privately-owned firearms.
And a $20,000 tax on people who won’t let the police search their homes.
If you want a trial by jury, well that costs more than to get out of a fundraising dinner with Anna Wintour (whoever that is).
your post’s last sentence blames all those who steadfastly voiced their disapproval of judicial activism.
well, if holder gets away with all his tricks and then comes to get you, it’ll all be your own fault, right?
Sounds like convoluted logic to me. How is changing the essential intent of a piece of legislation NOT legislating from the bench. And then you blame conservatives for tilling the soil by arguing against the exact thing the court just did. I guess we are guilty no matter what we do. Now all we need to do is find a crime.
With your premis, the court might as well have rewritten the whole thing.
The opinion might have followed a slightly different logic:
1.) The Act was not allowable and was therefore unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
2.) Functionally, the Act was a tax although it was not labeled as a tax.
3.) Under the Constitution, tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives rather than the Senate.
4.) Since the tax legislation originated in the Senate and was then manipulated through both houses through “reconciliation”, the Act is unconstitutional.
A “Roberts’ Folly” will come to be a common colloquialism meaning a “results driven legal analysis that twists the law to reach the desired outcome.” This is Roberts’ true legacy.
It’s also Alice in Wonderland legal reasoning: up is down; down is up; black is white; white is black. The Congressional history is clear that Congress intentionally created a “penalty” rather than a “tax.” The ACA refers to the enforcement consistently as a penalty; NEVER as a tax. The President, the Cabinet and the Congress were adamant this wasn’t a tax. The only way Roberts could possibly have reached this result is because he really wanted to; not because it’s coherent or makes any logical or practical sense. Roberts’ opinion is laughable in its tortured logic; the legislative and political history and the plain language of the text be damned. Only simpletons would place any import on those things; not erudite Chief Justices.
I certainly believe Congress has the power to encourage or discourage behavior through the Tax Code and that it is Constitutional to do so. However, Congress intentionally chose not to do so in this case and clearly constructed this as a regulatory penalty rather than a tax. Plain and simple. Roberts opinion is ridiculous.
Roberts is apparently enormously sensitive to perceptions about the degree to which the Court is politicized. He apparently voted with the liberal wing of the Court and cast the tie-breaking vote to bolster the public’s confidence in the Court as an apolitical institution. However, by such obviously contrived and tortured logic, Roberts has done just the opposite, and tremendously undermined and damaged its prestige. By indulging in such dishonest and shabby reasoning devoid of common sense to reach a results driven outcome, Roberts has achieved the opposite effect and made a mockery of the Court. He has certainly damaged the confidence in the Court as a bastion of logic, reasoning and intellectual prowess, and actually made himself look hyper-political and legacy-driven rather than apolitical, brilliant and above the fray.
If the Chief wants to achieve the stature to which he aspires, he needs to adopt rigorous logic and reasoning and follow it to its logical outcome, and not manipulate language and the law to achieve a desired outcome.
it’s too late for that now.
If the guy wants to make amends, he will resign from the court as soon as Romney is elected. His name is MUD for generations.
Talk about DECEPTIVE (Obama’s it’s not a tax” schtick)!
(AND stupid, on the part of SCOTUS)
The WH argued OCare was legal based on 3 criteria:
1) Commerce Clause (REJECTED by SCOTUS)
2) Proper and Necessary Clause (REJECTED by SCOTUS)
3) Congress may TAX (ACCEPTED by SCOTUS)
EXCEPT THAT…
IN ORDER FOR A TAX TO BE LEGITIMATE, CONGRESS MUST INITIATE IT IN THE *H*O*U*S*E*….oops. THIS originated in the Senate.
SO, not only is SCOTUS an ACCOMPLICE in this travesty, but
the only so-called justifiable legitimacy of this law IS ILLEGITIMATE!
True Conservative Genius, it wasn’t a tax in the statements of the President and the Congressional Majority when enacted; the protested vehemently that it wasn’t a tax. The USSC said it was a tax. The question of whether it was a properly enacted tax wasn’t before the Court. Perhaps some True Conservative Genius can file suit and ask the question.
Somewhere, I read that of all religious groups in the country, Muslims only were exempt from this law. (And is that true? Has anyone read enough of the law to actually know?) Around here, Mennonites and Amish self-insure. And there are quite a few of them.
What will be the effect on them? Will they be forced to violate their religious beliefs?
I think Amish are exempt. Also us foreign residents, or I would have to pay TWO socialized medicine taxes. (Currently I pay 5% of my income to the State of Israel as a health tax, plus some small payments to the Sick Funds for extended coverage.)
I think I’ll voice a second opinion on Nov. 6th
Cheers from the dark side!
Let’s see, Obamacare is not a tax under the anti-injunction act, but then a few pages later, it is a tax? Ok, that means that it only takes 51 votes in the senate to repeal it. Remember that next year when Harry Reid tries to filibuster the repeal. “Sorry Harry, Judge Roberts said its a tax, no filibusters allowed.”
Also, I’m a litte curious about Obamacare originating from the Senate? Doesn’t the Constitution say something about revenue (tax) bills originating in the House? Maybe they don’t teach that part at Harvard Law School anymore.
This is what I don’t understand: Roberts says it is not a direct tax.
Definition of direct tax:
“A government levy on the income, property, or wealth of people or companies. A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity. Examples include corporation tax, income tax, and social security contributions. ” [Source: http://www.businessdirectory.com/definition/direct-tax.html
So how is this punitive tax on an individual, to be levied and collected by the IRS, NOT a direct tax? What other kind could it possibly be? It’s certainly not indirect. A direct tax, as we know, is forbidden by the Constitution.
Roberts conveniently omitted his reasoning from the opinion, although he was effusive with respect to his reasoning on every other point in the decision. He is as dishonest as Obama and the Democrats.
illogical. if it’s a tax, then wy doesn’t the Anti-Injuction Act preclude review until after it’s levied. Oh, right. it’s a tax but not really.
What a bunch of cry baby wimp you are!!! Roberts told you that the court is not in the business of interpreting what is good or bad for us only what is constitutional. Get off your dead Asses an vote for those people who will represent you not egomaniacs and idiots, be American not cowards be active pay attention don’t rely on representives, they are not all that smart they need constant, constant guidance. Get with it quit whining
What a bunch of cry baby wimps you are!!! Roberts told you that the court is not in the business of interpreting what is good or bad for us only what is constitutional. Get off your dead butts and vote for those people who will represent you, not egomaniacs and idiots, be American not tree stumps, be active pay attention don’t rely on representatives, they are not all that smart they need constant, constant guidance. Get with it quit whining
There is only one sound way to react to this reversal. Work that much harder to make sure we take the presidency and senate this fall. Then we can get rid of this travesty the old fashioned way, repeal. We can never depend on the court alone to protect freedom, they are too used to deferring to the legislature (something us conservatives actually wanted back when we had a activist leftist court). We must defend our freedom ourselves, by electing people that will be on freedoms side.
One good thing, we will only need 51 senate votes, and a romney presidency, for effective repeal, because we can totally defund it in reconciliation, and Romney can completely waiver it. And the precedent for this was set by the dems themselves, when they resorted to reconciliation for final passage, and obama put the waiver provisions into the law, so he could waive it for his union and dem sronies.
The answer is both simple and hard; repeal the 16th Amendment, and remove the words “prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight” from the first paragraph of Article V, Section 1. That would rid us of Obama Care, the IRS, and all future tax and spend policies. Taxes would then be apportioned to the States by census. The Federal Govt. would need time to adjust.
“I was born in a welfare state, ruled by bureaucracy, controlled by civil servants, and people dressed in gray. Got no privacy, got no liberty, cause the 2(1)st century people took it all away from me.”
I guess I’m a paranoid schizoid product of the 20th century.
For George Will and other Conservatives, what did Roberts enable a Congress to do? He gave the left and, in particular, the Democratic left a field day. If the left manages it, here are some things that the Court will not find unconstitutional unless they over turn Roberts thinking.
1. Building owners who do not use special windows will have to pay a fine (er fee) of $10,000.
2. All the fascist complications of Superfund can be transferred to the Income Tax
3. People who grow flowers for sale, or actually otherwise, who do not classify some of their orchids as extinct and stop growing them, will pay an increment on their income tax.
4. People who choose to smoke will have an income tax increment of $5,000.
5. Although you cannot be forced not to, people who buy an SUV will be surcharged $500.00 on their income tax.
6. People who do not register to vote will be “surcharged” $500.00
7. People who do register to vote but not one of the two main parties will be surcharged $200.00
And here are some ingenious ones
1. People who are not on food stamps are surcharged $2000 dollars.
2. People who have not taken advantage of preventative medicine programs are surcharged $250.00 per program
3. People who do not permit the inoculation their daughters under seven years of age with the state sponsored venereal disease vaccines pay a fee of $500.00
and finally
4. People who do not carry someone’s flood insurance pay a fee of $3,500.00.
And the list goes on.