SCOTUS & ObamaCare: The Search for a Silver Lining
The Narrative seems to be congealing around the idea that the decision is a boost for Obama. I wonder. Althouse makes this interesting observation: “I have said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I’m really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.” I think so. Will those who are going to be most hurt by this legislation agree? Althouse argues that “the Democrats got the statute passed by insisting it was not a tax. Now, we learn it is only constitutional because it is a tax. That’s got to hurt politically.” I hope she is right. Romney has lost no time in playing it that way:
Republican Mitt Romney is promising that he will repeal the federal health care law the Supreme Court just upheld.
He called the decision incorrect and said Thursday that it is “bad law.” He says it raises taxes and cuts Medicare.
Yep, and yep again. Bottom line: the ball is back in the court of those who favor individual liberty and limited government. John Boehner got it absolutely right when he said: “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.” And I see from Drudge that the House has scheduled a vote to repeal ObamaCare for the week of July 9. So maybe, just maybe, John Roberts was the hedgehog in this scenario, or at least the purveyor of silver linings.
thumbnail image and illustration courtesy shutterstock / 2399
I have just read the first 50 pages of the ruling. On the bottom of page 44 and top of page 45 it says, quoting Chief Justice Roberts:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
So basically Roberts said that the mandate, as a mandate in plain language, is unconstitutional, but the penalty for not observing the mandate can (with a stretch) be construed as a tax, so it is constitutional.
Bottom line — we are free to ignore the mandate as long as we are willing to pay the tax (really a penalty but considered by the Court to be a tax). We would be observing the law because Congress can’t compel us to buy something but it can tax us if we don’t buy it.
Therefore, since the penalty/tax is so much lower now than the cost of insurance, if everyone paid the “tax” and didn’t buy insurance, they would be complying with the law while at the same time making its implementation financially impossible.
I think this is the recommended course of civil (dis)obedience. I say it with the parentheses because it would be an act of defiance implemented by complying with the escape clause found within the part of the law that the court found constitutional.
In addition, I believe that Chief Justice Robert’s strained efforts to find the penalty provision, the one that both Congress and the President vehemently asserted was NOT a tax, was indeed a tax,is an example of the bed of Procrustes. Here is the essence:
Procrustes was a host who adjusted his guests to their bed. Procrustes, whose name means “he who stretches”, was arguably the most interesting of Theseus’s challenges on the way to becoming a hero. He kept a house by the side of the road where he offered hospitality to passing strangers, who were invited in for a pleasant meal and a night’s rest in his very special bed. Procrustes described it as having the unique property that its length exactly matched whomsoever lay down upon it. What Procrustes didn’t volunteer was the method by which this “one-size-fits-all” was achieved, namely as soon as the guest lay down Procrustes went to work upon him, stretching him on the rack if he was too short for the bed and chopping off his legs if he was too long. Theseus turned the tables on Procrustes, fatally adjusting him to fit his own bed.
I believe that because Chief Justice Roberts wanted to find a way to make Obamacare constitutional, he adjusted the meaning of “mandate” and “shall” (a word that Constitutionally means mandatory) and “penalty” to stretch and trim into the concept of a tax in the same way Procrustes “adjusted” his guests to fit his bed.
When one starts stretching and trimming the meaning of words to fit the a priori desired conclusion, we begin to erode the fabric of things. Lewis Carroll anticipated this when he wrote these words for the Red Queen, “When I use a word it means what I want it to mean.”
We will see what unfolds from this in November and thereafter. I fear that once words lose their meaning and mean only what the speaker wants them to mean, we will have entered very dangerous and slippery times.
Check out footnote 11 on page 44:
“11Of course, individuals do not have a lawful choice not to pay a taxdue, and may sometimes face prosecution for failing to do so (although not for declining to make the shared responsibility payment, see 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(2)).”
Which reads, in part:
“(2) Special rules
Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(A) Waiver of criminal penalties
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitations on liens and levies
The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.”
There are no penalties, if I’m reading this right, for failing to comply with the mandate or pay the tax. It’s as toothless as the Puppacita.
That’s the way I see it too; as written it is a perfect paper tiger. To make it bite, it will have to be rewritten as a proper tax…and the House is not going to do that nohow. Obamacare is not saved, it’s over with. It’s Charlton Heston propped up on horse and terrifying its foes, but in the end, once the horse get’s tired, dead is still dead. (Apologies to both Charlton Heston and Rodrigo de Vivar for the unpleasant comparison)
Hmmm, I’m not sure I agree with the assessment. Nothing WRONG with it. But the actions of yesterday aren’t about obama. (AKA, aitch!) They are about John Roberts. And here are my problems with his decision:
1)I would think that taxing someone because they DON’T have something would be tantamount to “Taxation without Representation.” IN FACT, the US Income Tax Code has provisions for withhold taxes AFTER insurance is withheld. Ergo, by not having insurance, one does not get the insurance tax break and is already “taxed.” Seems to me this would constitute “double-taxation.”
2)Along with #1, an argument can be made that we can be fined (“Taxed.”) for not using our seat belts. BUT, we can’t be fined for driving, say, a 1926 Hupmobile, that doesn’t even HAVE a seat belt. (Never mind CATA/school buses, backs of pickup trucks or motorcycles.) The point being, how can Roberts vote FOR taxing something people don’t even HAVE?!
3)As for the analogy of Procrustes, that is very apropos! Since he (Roberts) did, in fact, stretch it, what better way to describe a MYTH than with a myth?!
4)Finally, by his actions, he violated the first tenet of jurisprudence and the primary responsibility of his position; “Adjudicate without passion or prejudice!” As you likely read this morning, Charles Krauthammer surmises that he was trying to avoid the “appearance of overreach by the SCOTUS.” As, say, with the 2000 Florida election. (Never mind that the Supremes merely overturned the decision of the Dem-laden Fla Supreme Court and leave the count to the [rightful] election official, the SOS.)
That last point being, without thinking beyond the consequences of aitch-care – giving Congress the right to tax, after the fact, virtually any regulation they pass – Roberts overreached in validating a “law” that, itself, was CLEARLY an overreach!
I’m not at all curious about his motive – good, bad or indifferent. What I AM concerned with is that the CJOTSC has allowed his own passions, ideologies, theories, applied fixes – whatever – to transform the SCOTUS into a whole new paradigm.
Ok, I get that Supremes have long voted along partisan lines. That’s usually because they are appointed BECAUSE of their partisanship. And, it’s hard to break out of the box. Which is my whole point. Whatever his motives, they neither followed the law – letter, intent or theory – nor his political bent. Nor can anyone buy into his seemingly arbitrary explanation.
All that’s left to ask is, “What has he DONE to us?!”
The Court included one very important word here — “timely.” Note that is says there is no punishment for “failure by a taxpayer to TIMELY pay any penalty imposed by this section.” As I read this, there’s no overall exemption from punishment. You can still be punished for not paying the tax. You just can’t be punished if you can’t pay the tax in a “timely” fashion (because of financial hardship or similar circumstances, I would guess.) Then, of course, it appears to be up to the government to determine what “timely” is. At least, that’s my interpretation of this.
The reasoning in this ruling is frightening. So, the government can’t force you to buy insurance, but it can tax you as a punishment for not buying insurance. The floodgates are open. I suppose the government can now tax people who drive trucks instead of hybrids, and so on. In other words, “We will try to control your behavior and purchasing decisions by ‘punishing’ you through taxes.” The government keeps growing more and more tentacles.
Roberts says: “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”
Bullcrap and bullcrap. This is the sophistry we could expect from somebody who does not have to deal with this thing called the REAL WORLD.
Roberts wants to say Congress cannot ‘command’ a behavior BUT they CAN impose taxes and criminal penalties on anyone who does not engage in the behavior. So they can’t force you to pay but they can force you to pay?
OK Roberts, lets play a game: What does the word “command” mean- how about we go to the dictionary: “To direct or require an action under threat of personal or financial loss.” I get it now! Congress cannot “command” a behavior- they can only direct or require an action under threat of personal or financial loss. Thanks so much for that circular logic that eviscerates our liberty.
But the government already does that!
The Government can’t force smokers to quit smoking.
But they can sure impose a steep tax on cigarettes. And they do.
By doing that, they are making smokers pay a penalty for smoking (and spreading their second-hand smoke to other people’s lungs).
Of course the government can prohibit activity. Government is always telling us what we CANNOT do. Don’t drive over a certain speed limit. Don’t take this drug because it is illegal. In addition now the sovereign government can order the subjects what behaviors we are REQUIRED to do to avoid taxes.
Let me try again: The government could always order us to quit smoking by making it illegal to smoke. Now the government can order us to START smoking if it chooses. There is no longer individual sovereignty. Sovereignty has passed to the central government with this ruling.
(from another post)
I am a lawyer and have taught undergraduate students Constitutional Law for several years. Much of what I have taught about State sovereignty, federal powers, and limited federal jurisdiction went away this week. Roberts has sealed the fate of this Republic. You people who are trying to put a smiley face on this tell me: What is the limit of federal power under this ruling except the ballot box? Forget about Obamacare and use your imagination for the future. Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 changed the country but it took many years to bear bitter fruit. What fruit might this decision bear?
Turns out it could bear lots and lots of fruit- and veggies too! Under this ruling Congress could order families to buy fruits and veggies each week. They could send inspectors into every refrigerator to insure compliance. They could order everybody to implant subdermal microchips (and pay for it using penalty-oops, I mean “conditional taxes”) to monitor blood enzyme parameters. They could order couples to have sex at least 1 time per week since regular sex is important for public health. Do your boyfriend or pay the tax. Congress could require SUBJECTS to assemble at the local neighborhood commissars office at 6:00 a.m. each day for morning calisthenics since exercise is important to health. Miss more than 1 day a week and you pay a $10,000.00 fine- ooops, I mean a “conditional tax.” This is the progressive wet dream- far more important than Obamacare.
Exactly!!! The Fed could impose any tax it wanted two days ago and it can today, two days later. He gave them no new power.
Point two: Roberts also took apart the Commerce Clause so it can’t ever be used again like Obamacare tried to use it.
Point three: Because Roberts was willing to call a tax a tax it clarifies the issue just in time for the election. If he hadn’t it would have been a muddle and the people wouldn’t have the clear choice they have now.
Beautiful dissection!
Let’s see: The mandate to perform some (presumably, any) purchase is illegal due to an absence of constitutional powers, whilst the penalty (in this case redefined as a tax) obviously meant to coerce precisely such undemandable compliance be a lawful exercise of powers! Wow! What’s next?! Will we be required, in some future bill, to purchase breathing air and, failing to do so, be “taxed” just as though we had?! If CJ Roberts is the best our system of legal education has to offer, and such illogic the best product of our general educational systems, then…I’m outta here!
Had forgotten the legend of Procrustes, but how apt a metaphor! One can but hope and pray that, someday, Roberts will be required to submit to such “tender mercies”! Bed next to him — Kagan, who should have recused!
Folks, with this kind of logic for precedent, every one of the Constitution’s foundational building blocks has received a jackhammer blow. We might as well shredder the whole thing and start over. Freedom, bye, bye!
No limits now to the encroachments that corrupt legislators and creative “legal eagles”, acting together (all too often they are in any case one and the same), may perpetrate upon individual rights.
The pens of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and so many others, framed a charter for liberty which their guns had had to defend at so great cost, but ultimately it was the dollars of so many times many productive citizens who, being for the first time in recorded human history freed from undue government interference with their best rational judgements, that fueled the growth of this freedom into the greatest society and nation the world has ever known!
The $$$ were the fuel of continuing future liberty and prosperity, so long as their greater measure was kept in the hands of honest and productive citizens. The unlimited powers to tax them away, affirmed on this very day by a most gossamer pretence at “logic”, define the “road to serfdom” as the only road remaining to a once free people. Woe to all of us! And a curse upon the likes of a Mr. Roberts!
Excellent Batman.
This needs to be tweeted to Justice Roberts…sorry man…
he is concerned about his ego…sold out….shameful…no soul…the robe is only a symbol. He has no longer earned it.
The Miss Piggy Kagan should be severely criticized for not recusing herself…but Obama owns her too.
John Roberts did not sell out.
He was never on our side.
Question – The one thing that was found to be unconstitutional was that the federal government can’t penalize states by not paying them anything towards Medicare (as the bill was originally written) for refusing to participate in Obama Care. See the last two pages of the Synopsis. We have 26 states that filed suit against the law. What happens if some or all of those 26 states decline to participate?
I know one thing. If my state insists on participating and a certain nearby state doesn’t, I’m moving.
Romney’s simple statement says it all: “If we want to replace Obamacare, we have to replace President Obama.”
The full video of his response to the ruling (at just 4 minutes) is available at Legal Insurrection, and gives the lie to assertions that he’s given no details about what he does favor:
http://legalinsurrection.com/
You should watch this video of Romney in his own words recommending that President Obama copy wahat he did in Msss. at the federal level. More specifically, he recommends that President Obama use the mandate (in Mass they called it a tax penalty) as an enforcement mechanism.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-suggested-three-times-in-2009-that-o
You guys have no idea how you are being played …
…and Drudge reports that 26 Republican governors have vowed to ignore the law until after the election.
Would the Democrats have passed Obamacare if it were rightly called a tax during deliberation, nevermind the biggest middle class tax increase in American history? Probably not.
SCOTUS, and particularly Chief Justice Roberts, rewrote the law to make it a tax without the necessity of having the legislation go back to Congress for debate and rewrite. No Congress Critter now has to say that he/she supports a huge tax increase. How nice for them!
The Democrats also get the opportunity to legislate an additional 1/8 of the US population as unionized government workers (i.e every health care worker). That would almost certainly guarantee the Democrats a majority in perpetuity.
POTUS lied. Congress lied. SCOTUS says it’s OK.
Nice Republic you had there.
Please correct this if I am wrong:
SCOTUS ruled the mandatory portion of the mandate unconstitutional but ruled the penalty for not observing the mandate constitutional by reinterpreting it as a tax.
Is this correct? Mandate unconstitutional but penalty constitutional?
Not quite. I’ve only read Roberts’ opinion once, but he seems to be putting a limit on the commerce clause, which can’t compel you to buy a product. But through the taxing power, the feds can compel you to buy a product or else pay a not-a-tax tax.
Apparently, yes. As a post on Glenn Reynolds said, ” the Constitution stops at the Internal Revenue Service”.
Let’s go along with the Roberts’ reductio ad absurdum
The Congress cannot prohibit abortion, but it could impose a $10,000 individual tax on abortions?
And the Congress cannot ban possession of firearms, but it could impose a $10,000 individual tax on firearms?
And the Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, but the next time I go to Sunday Mass I’ll have to write a check for $10,000?
Etc. Und so weiter. Ad [expletive] nauseum.
Oh no, you say, the Court wouldn’t allow that?
Are you sure?
That’s already done.
Congress can’t ban cigarette smoking, but they can impose a very heavy tax on cigarettes. And they can keep raising the tax until smokers can no longer afford to pay it–at which point they will be forced to quit.
Ah, there is exactly the problem.
Now it is no longer up to the plain words of a written law, or the plain words of the Constitution.
The COURT will now decide what is “allowed”, and what is not.
Actually, it’s been doing that for quite a while, with the enthusiastic support of the “conservatives” on the court.
For example, “shall not be infringed” now means, “Well, you can’t ban it outright, but you CAN limit in reasonable ways. And WE will decide what is “reasonable”. Today it means one thing, tomorrow….? Well, we’ll let you know what it means tomorrow.”
I’m not a lawyer and frankly not very smart. That said, could it be that the Court holds that Obama can’t force people to buy something, but he can tax them through legislation?
The government can already tax us with proper legislation. Is the Court saying, then, that Obamacare, apart from forcing people to buy Obamacare, is a legislative matter. Am I simply repeating what Roger has said more eloquently?
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 says that “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.”
If I’m not mistaken, Obamacare originated in the Senate. Also, constitutionally it would seem impossible for the Supreme Court to impose a tax or revenue-generating mechanism.
Can any learned lawyers out there clarify these points?
I may be wrong, but I believe they gutted another nondescript bill that had passed the House, then cut & paste this monstrosity into it before it got to the Senate, so that it “technically” passed the House first.
Roberts gives every indication of being VERY conservative in terms of judicial philosophy; the jury is out on how conservative he is in terms of political philosophy. A conservative jurist would not want to answer a question not put directly to the court; that was one of the criticisms from the left of last weeks’ decision on union dues. Looks to me like CommieCare is fairly begging for another challenge now that it has been determined to be a tax and only Constitutional as a tax. Now that it is a tax, was it a Constitutionally enacted tax? That question was not before the Court today.
Art, you missed it on this one. John Roberts is a leftist mole.
Remember the Sandra Day O’Conner disaster?
She was a well-known abortion activist, but somehow she got a green light through the vetting process? How did that happen?
She was vetted by a young lawyer named John Glover Roberts, Jr.
Can you say, “Trojan Horse”?
Nah, don’t think so. Roberts may not satisfy some self-styled “true conservatives,” but almost nobody would. He thinks like a conservative lawyer and he has a pretty good head for three-dimensional chess and electoral politics.
Check his history, Art. He’s a mole who just broke cover.+
As evidenced by the illogical gibberish of his opinion, John Roberts is a moron and doufus who was appointed by another doufus W. He is a disgrace who should commit suicide.
What is the point of the House voting to repeal Obamacare in July? Does that set the stage for future efforts or is it just posturing for no real purpose?
The house will vote repeal. It goes to the senate where 51 can repeal if it is a tax. Give four dems a chance to get re-elected by dissing Obamatax. If not they gotta defend their revote to the constituents in November.
If this was sold to the American people not as a tax and argued by several states as being Un-constitutional as a mandate under the Commerce clause and Roberts struck it down as being un-constitutional under the Commerce clause then why does law still stand? Send the Act back to congress to vote it as a tax and see the outcome. The argument before him wasn’t to decide if it was a tax. Am I missing something.
No, not much!
Roberts decided to decide (chose to decide) to parce the law in what many, including myself, would consider an inappropriate manner. The rationale (aka logic) would have to be: the law is not always, nor necessarily, logical. But, if that is true, then do we have any reason to expect the law to be rational? And, if here the answer were to be “No”, then by what measure or standards is law created in the first place? On a whim? Next minute, a different whim? Why, then, have any laws at all, if they end up being to such a great extent entities of willfull, subjective, un-objective, interpretation? Deuces wild, anyone? Jokers? 2′s? How about the whole deck? Why not?
To my mind, what just was done amounts to saying: Psychology is psychological, but psychological is by definition the logic of the psyche, and follows its own rules. He who wishes to make sense of these is advised to repair himself to Delphi and consult the oracle! Whoops, there goes another branch of “science”.
SCOTUS has now ruled that the “penalty” is constitutional only if it is construed as a tax. Now it’s up to CONGRESS to determine how that tax is to be collected. The entire law is going down, since it cannot work without the mandate, and Congress will never openly authorize a massive tax increase.
Ah, I remember reading something similar here on PJM just this morning, on how the SCOTUS would NEVER uphold Obamacare.
And I remember hearing similar confident predictions about 4 years ago how American would NEVER elect Obama.
Some people never learn.
Yes like people who believe in socialism. It ruins everything it touches but the idiots who push it just never learn.
My point was about the massive overconfidence of some conservatives. I see them on every conservative forum, prattling about how we’re going to give the libs a spanking in November.
Frankly, such confident pronouncements strike me as stemming from immaturity.
Some feel Justice Roberts has opened the floodgates for challenges to Commerce Clause-based past decisions, and to the effort to restrain governmental power. I don’t see it, but I will give the benefit of the doubt.
The Congressional and Presidential elections, IMHO already the most important since 1860, just became the most important since the Constitution was ratified.
What everyone is missing is that a very large dam just broke. It was too much for the Commerce Clause, but it’s all okay because it’s a tax.
In the future, Congress will never pass anything that is not a tax bill. “We want you to eat 10 pounds of broccoli per year and, if you don’t, your tax bill will be $100 higher.” Constitutional!
Yes, that is correct. But, it was also true two days ago. The only thing that keeps Congress from taxing you more is it would political suicide. Perhaps that is just what Roberts did; hand Democrats a loaded gun with a hair trigger and say ‘see you in November’.
Since it is now (apparently) agreed that the mandate is in fact a tax, I have a couple of questions. (Please keep in mind that my personal “tax expertise” mainly consists of knowing H&R Block’s phone number.)
First, was it passed as per the standard procedures for a revenue bill/law? Did the House and/or Senate Finance Committees sign off on it? If it went through Congress without going through at least one of those committees, under the law its legal status is, to the say the least, questionable.
Second, if it is in fact a tax, what about all those “waivers” issued by the White House to various unions and other groups exempting them from the provisions of the act? This would, prima facie, be a violation of federal tax law, to say nothing of the separation of powers principle. The President can not arbitrarily exempt favored entities from the provisions of the tax code.
This means that those waivers are null and void- or else that those receiving them must give them up to avoid prosecution on Federal tax evasion charges. And said charges are nothing to laugh about. (“Al Capone, pick up the white courtesy phone, please.”)
There are probably other problems with the Act as defined by the SCOTUS decision, but these are the first two I thought of.
Both would indicate that the “mandate” plays fast and loose with tax law in a way that has had bad, not to say savage, consequences for supposedly smart guys in the past.
You’d think an experienced Chicago pol like The One would know better than to sign off on something like this.
clear ether
eon
Well, my knowledge of taxes stops at which blanks to fill in on Turbotax, but I’d say you have a very good point. There are a few limited groups who get certain taxes waived (the poor, nonprofits, etc.). But those groups are excepted by law, not by fiat.
What a mess.
Lets face it. There is not a single senator or congressman in either party who does not want more of other peoples money to spend.
After today we must acknowledge that there is effectively only one branch of government : Tax, Spend, Control, and stay in office ad naseum. As an aside I believe the Obamacare law includes at least 4000 additional IRS police. November will likely be the last chance to rescue the great experiment / USA.
John Roberts: Traitor
George W Bush: Complete fool.
This is no longer my country. I don’t recognize it and I will not support it or obey its laws.
So, you’e moving to Iran?
Krugman type thinking. Half wish, half hope, all delusion.
Those of you that think this will hurt 0bama in November have no hook to hang that on. For ever voter this spurs to battle, there will be at least one voter who sees that the game is fixed and there is no reason to play. Roberts treason has moved a civil war from likely to certain. The question is do we man the ramparts now or wait until after the rigged election?
So, the government can’t force people to buy something under the Commerce Clause because that would be completely and utterly unconstitutional. Oh but wait, they can punish them with a burdensome “tax” if they don’t buy it, and then take them to court and eventually to jail at gunpoint if they don’t pay the tax. That’s perfectly okay. See? They weren’t forced at all. What if the government forgets to call whatever arbitrary new power it wants a “tax”? No problem. The courts will happily do that for them.
What kind of logic is that?!
I can’t wait for the new taxes on speech the government disagrees with, taxes on being of the incorrect religion, taxes on not testifying against yourself in court, and taxes on not allowing regular searches of your home and person. And don’t forget the taxes on voting the wrong way or not contributing to Obama’s campaign.
I wish so very much that it were just hyperbole for dramatic effect, but this ruling is literally the end of the Constitution. People have complained about that for years every time a decision went the wrong way, but of course, it was never literally true. Those were just chips and cracks in the document that guarantees our freedom. But this ruling truly crumbles that document to dust. The government is now allowed to compel you to do anything the Constitution expressly prohibits as long as you are taxed as punishment for not doing it.
Our only hope is that the Supreme Court will decide a similar case in the opposite way before a point of no return is reached where they no longer have any power at all.
Here’s the logic:
Explain to me the difference between the following two scenarios:
1. If cigarette smokers won’t quit smoking, we’ll make them pay a penalty.
2. If cigarette smokers keep smoking, we’ll impose a steep tax on the cigarettes they buy.
Get it? For decades now, the Government has used the power of taxation to punish certain behavior and reward other behavior.
Yes, but now merely existing is considered bad behavior liable to be punished. Therefore anything is now taxable.
Those are equivalent and not things I support, but — except for the use of the word “tax” — have nothing at all to do with today’s ruling (which is far, far worse). ObamaCare is more like:
Every single citizen (but not visitors, illegals, or politicians) must buy cigarettes that meet whatever arbitrary standards a small, unelected group of bureaucrats decide (or are bribed to support). The standards will change at will, and the price will rise ever higher with each new requirement. Sorry, it is illegal to appeal their decisions. If you don’t buy the cigarettes, you have the choice of either paying a tax or going to jail.
I have never liked nor do I like Obamacare because it is the biggest tax increase in history.. George H W Bush was not re-elected because he said “no new taxes”. Before those who support Obamacare jump up and do the Happy Dance they first better realize what has really happened. Roberts has said that Congress that has always had the power to TAX, but Congress or Obama cannot call a tax a “mandate” just because it is not good for their political career. They now have to defend a lie which is what they said it wasn’t in passing this law, but argued that it was OK because it was a tax in front of the Supreme Court. The Two Faces of Obama, Pelosi, Reid——-lie first, switch later.
If we fail, I have no way out. I won’t be able to afford the taxes, I won’t be able to afford my home and will lose it, and then will be taxed on the money I have “saved” by not having to pay the mortgage anymore. (If you want to know where that comes from, it is included in the oncoming Taxmageddon. If you get foreclosed on, they count it as an income increase and tax you accordingly, starting in 2013.)
So, if Obama gets re-elected, I’m dead. Probably literally.
Questions, assuming the repubs take control of Congress and the WH and assuming they are able to pass a repeal what is to stop dems from draging out the implementation of the repeal until the SCOTUS hears it? Wouldn’t the law have taken effect by that point? Will the law become more popular the longer its in place much like SS?
Having just came from reading Ken Klukowski’s eviserating denouncement (sharing the main points Batman has posted here), I find both hope and consolation in Mr Kimballs post.
But that is despite the fact the rulling is bullocks. I’m no lawyer or scholar, but I do strive to be a gentleman when possible. I will give Roberts this much – I believe HE BELIEVES he earnestly did what he felt was right and best for the country.
But Klukowski is right (at least this far) – this is the worst crap SCOTUS ruling in my adult lifetime – and certainly as much a tortured monstrosity as was ROE V WADE and the cobbled together 2000+ page law birthed from Pelosi & Obama this time around.
What is important, and vastly different now, is that there is hope for the political process – via this election – to repeal.
Which is the only thing that rings true from Roberts ruling. Having shot down the pretense that from the onset taxing authority (which the ruling party refused to acknowlege because doing so jepordized successfully enacting the legislation) was the basis – the Chief Justice rationalizes why he provided the cruical vote.
I don’t buy those trying to say he ‘blinked’ due to Obama’s ‘warnings.’ I don’t like it and think it’s bunk – but I’m certainly now willing to join Klukowski’s assertion that as a result Roberts has gone so far off his rocker and the reservation that he is in David Souter land.
Just as important is that the Chief Justice is really alone in his majority opinion. NONE of the 4 liberals who voted as expected back up his rationale. While ALL of the dissenters spoke loud and clear with one voice.
AS opposed to the decisive (and prepared) response to SB1070 & immigration – having further re-instituted ‘catch and release’ not only by having Homeland Security withdraw ICE compliance – clearly a federal imperative to punish Arizona and push the narrative that the whole matters is one of ‘civil and human rights’, the victory dance Obama is making publicly further strengthens the points Mr Kimball has raised.
There are a half million reasons why the right errupted over Obama allowing Pelosi & Reed shove this frankenstein down the throats of Americans – and they have all been litigated a thousand times over.
Now it is up to Romney and THE REST OF US to send the fraud in office back to Chicago and fix this mess. The battlelines are clearly drawn. No more excuses. No more evasions.
Scholars can debate todays ruling for ages to come.
The election in Nov is what matters. It’s certainly is the biggest of my lifetime. To have this sitting president still in office with a presidental signing pen at his side is truly a frightening thought.
So, I can’t be forced to be active, to purchase and eat my collared greens an hominy grits under the power of the commerce clause, to better hoe that cotton and pick that tobacco, but now I get to be taxed for being inactive and refusing to eat my grits. Tell me, after getting past the technical issue of what is property and ownership, exactly how is this fundamentally different from being a state slave? Surely Roberts is now the equivalent of Tanney and the Dred Scott decision? And the irony is the law was passed by civil rights democrats (fond of slavery in the 19th century) and a black post American president. And exactly where is this new mandate for an inactivity tax explicitly authorized in the constitution? There’s an income, excise, custom, and even corporate and estate taxes on property, all predicated on activity or belonging to someone as property. Looks like a slave tax to me.
Bend over friend’s,Socialism is the change !!!!
I do believe the GOP was just handed a huge opportunity, as there is no way Obama can deny that Obamacare is a $1.3 TRILLION TAX HIKE that will mostly hurt the middle class and poor people. The “evil rich” Soetoro rails against almost always have health care, and thus will not have to pay the tax required of people without coverage.
I am not buying the idea that Roberts is some limited government visionary, but it should be noted that at least two left-wing bloggers–one at Slate, one at Gawker–are warning their fellow progressives that Roberts just sold them a pig in a poke, and what the liberals think is a Christmas ham is actually a dead hog that hasn’t started stinking yet. I actually hope those left-wing bloggers are right: that is what kind of day it is.
No money for border guards but plenty for the new IRS agents…
Ouch!! Good point!
The more I read and think about this ruling, the more lunatic the thought-processes behind it become, putting Roberts in a dead heat with Nancy (“We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it”) Pelosi for first place in the Under-appreciated Beltway Genius Award.
It’s pretty clear we need to release massive doses of anti-psychotics into the Beltway water supply, STAT.
To all of those anti-libertarian repubs who post here constantly about the need to abandon principles to vote for any repub nominee “because of appointments to the court”: Roberts. . . nuff said.
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 legitimation of this law IS ILLEGITIMATE!
I am not a violent man, but I do hope that Chief Justice Roberts is afraid to been seen in public. He deserves the righteous wrath of those whose liberties he has taken away.
ObamaCare cannot be repealed with a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate.
No Senate Dems–not even the moderate ones–will destroy their careers by helping to repeal the Democratic Party’s biggest social program of a generation. They will filibuster to death any attempt by President Romney to repeal ObamaCare.
That’s why Romney’s plan is to just issue blanket waivers to all 50 states. He can do that by executive order. And then if enough states drop out of ObamaCare, the program will be gutted anyway.
So vote in enough governors and state legislatures who will use those waivers to drop out of ObamaCare.
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 conditioins”, while the healthy will pay the (much lower)tax. BIG moneyloser! Thus, they will be the first to lobby “our” representatives to repeal same.
OBAMA LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON OBAMACARE NOT BEING A TAX, OR IT’S THE OBAMACARETAX STUPID
September 20, 2009, the 243rdth day of the Obama Administration, Obama assured George Stephenopoulis and the American people that ObamaCare was not a tax. Obama said in effect: READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS! This ruling upholding Obamacare under the tax provisions of the Constitution will erode Obama’s credibility and trust with the public and make ObamaCare more unpopular than ever. Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts who has, I believe by design, handed Obama a HOLLOW VICTORY that will cost him the presidency in November. In the worst month of Obama’s ill-starred presidency his fate has been sealed: like George H. W. Bush he’ll be a one term President.
Click my name ApolloSpeaks to continue reading this widely linked piece.
This is something beyond just “health care.” What this judge has done has made it constitutional for the federal government to tax all aspects of our lives. The precedent has now been set. There are only two options for us, that I know of, have the court reverse itself or pass an amendment.
Mayor Bloomberg and Michell Obama really do not like, “fatty foods or drink.” So let us get congress to pass a tax to end it. I don’t like you owning a gun, tax that gun. The fun part it can be done under the rubric of health care. After all that Coca-Cola or that .38 special is obliviously harmful to someone’s health.
I have been reading about how we have got to elect a Republican congress to repeal Obamacare. I have a question, since the New Deal until today, how many of these types of government programs have repealed? I do believe the answer is none.
I have found the silver lining; we can now get rid of Planned Parenthood. All the whiners who always complain that PP is the only place that they can afford to get “healthcare” will now have to buy insurance and will be able to go elsewhere for care. Run along now, time to suck it up, do your part, and go buy some insurance. No running off to an exotic country to cheat, then coming back when you are sick and mooching off of those who have been forced to pay all along.
Is this a short-term win and a long-term disaster for Obama? Yes. Can’t wait to see the fundraising totals in ~72 hours.
Care to bet that if there isn’t a sentence hidden in this 2000 page
“abortion” called Obamacare stating that if you don’t have insurance,
then it will be illegal for a Doctor or hospital to treat you, there will
be one inserted in the middle of a sentence on the back page of some
highway bill or a military appropriations bill (or just DECREED by the
emperor barack). YOU PEASANTS WILL BEND TO MY WILL or you will die!!!
Folks, I said this early today.
It was a Bait and Switch. ObamaTax is an albatross around his neck.
This was a master stroke by Roberts. Intentionally or unintentionally.
He just hung an anchor on Obama and Sebelius…smiled and put a frilly bow on it.
Think about it.
He told the American people what Obama/Pelosi/Reid would not. This was ALWAYS a tax. Now…go run on THAT platform.
He told the American people that Obama can’t hide behind the phony claim of a mandate, that’s unconstitutional. He pulled away the rock and made the communistas crawl out from under it. He exposed them as frauds, liars, con men and cheats.
He shined a light on our government by ambush.
If he had voted to make the whole thing unconstitutional, THIS…would NEVER have been the discussion.
Obama sent his lawyers to skulk into court and mumble the truth…we are going to tax the brains out of the top 50% who actually…you know..PAY taxes. And “redistribute” to “our constituency”. Payback. Revenge. Against a country they hate.
Roberts did something today. He gave them what they wished for and they are too drunk with celebration to understand it will cripple them.
They CAN’T enforce most of it. They can’t run on it. They can’t parade this “gift” around on their shoulders. It’s…a…tax. Who the hell is going to run on THAT?
By doing it this way, he energized the populace who hate the bill, he made the Supreme Court look supremely “fair” and “unbiased”, he put the truth on trial and he slammed the gavel on the head of the lie and distortion.
“Ok, you want to call it a tax? It’s a tax. Now, you go out and tell the middle class how you intend to bend them over. And…by the way…you CAN’T punish the states for not complying with your program and pulling out their existing rolls coverage. You CAN’T force people to buy your crappy policies, you CAN’T force them to buy anything. You can ONLY tax their brains out. Go forth and campaign on that”.
If the Republicans have an ounce of brains…THEY ought to be drinking champagne and eating caviar tonight. Are you kidding me? ObamaTax gave them THREE major issues.
1)Obama lied through his teeth in a bait and switch.
2)Obama tried to gang rape the Constitution and got his ass kicked on the mandate.
3)Obama is going to tax your brains out and try to bludgeon you into compliance with his communist manifesto.
Run those up every flagpole. What’s his response to ANY of them? He has none.
CJ Roberts is one scary-smart guy; and that ain’t easy for me to say about anybody. He took the evil Republican Court that “selected” GWB off the table. He took the free birth control pills for the sluts off the table. He made whether or not a tax bill was properly enacted a live question. Now the only question is whether or not Romney and the Stupid Party can do anything with the ground he plowed for them.
Can Obamacare “mandate” the insurance companies to pay for Fluke’s condoms? If healthcare is not interstate commerce, how can the Fed force the states to carry out its mandates? What rights does the Fed have?
To me, it sounds like Roberts did a kind of tortured twisting of the meaning of the mandate. It was called a mandate, not a tax. Does this mean that we, The Taxpayers, the employers, if you will, of these corrupt nutcases who are running this country, will have to bow to every decision the Congress or the President or the Supreme Court make? Have we become Serfs? This reminds me of the Middle Ages when the barons got together and forced King John to agree to the Magna Carta. This government has run amok and we must rein it in. Today was a very bad day for the country. As for me, I intend to get affiliated with one of the Tea Party groups.
I see this ruling as a bigger victory for the Left than they could have ever hoped for. They must be utterly breathless contemplating Congress’s new powers of taxation.
Their template for the final destruction of America is set: pass an obviously unconstitutional law and wait for a challenge in the Supreme Court. Worst outcome, it is repealed. Best outcome, it is upheld and new hitherto unknown worlds of Federal power are revealed in the process.
I’m sorry, I’m still confused…I’m no legal mind, here. If I’m reading this ruling correctly, if Obama wants this law, it can’t be a mandate, it has to be a tax. But tax bills have to originate from the House of Representatives, and Obamacare didn’t. Right? So won’t the whole thing have to be scrapped, anyway?
Chief Justice Roberts: It’s Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It’s Law, But It’s Not ‘Unlawful’ to Break It
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it
He violated his oath to the Constitutiion to protect a man who doesn’t deserve it. He’s destroyed his reputation with the people that matter. He’s sided with evil.
It is not Obamacare, it is now Obamatax.
Chief Justice John Roberts, explaining his Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare:
“Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
Roberts has signed the political death warrants not only of Obama, who was probably already on the way out, but several Dems in the Senate who secretly wish he’d killed the ObamaCare albatross for them. He has also pretty much guaranteed that the Red Queen won’t be speaker of the House again.
Political slogan for this fall: REPEAL THE OBAMACARE TAX INCREASE!
Mark this day. Freedom died today in the good old US of A and it will never be regained. You have witnessed the beginnings of the death throes of the Republic. And John Roberts was the aider and abettor.
I really don’t believe the public at large will be all that interested in discussing the ACA. Its effects won’t be felt for some time, and in most people’s eyes it’s been legitimized and blessed today.
The commenters who said that it’s up to Romney to connect the dots have it right. With unemployment high and the deficits and uncertainty, people will get impatient if Romney harps too much on Obamacare. I’m utterly certain that most people believe their health care will cost them less. Romney has to say enough to paint the picture of how Obamacare will hurt everyone. I wish I was more certain that he will do that.
Whatever you think of Chris Christie, he has a great knack for personalizing large, abstract dollar amounts, and shocking people. We need that now.
N.B., The “reputation of the Supreme Court” is only brought clamorously, no, hysterically, into question when there is a chance one of their decisions might displease the lefty elites.
Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY
Another outhouse pit diver. You guys just won’t quit. So the courts reputation is saved. Says who? Liberals? Are they the gold star measure of it? And what does it do to the legislative branch. Did Roberts throw them to the wolves? That would be political, wouldn’t it; save his institution’s hide at the expense of the others and for only that reason? Disgusting. Did the ruling turn back the reach of the commerce clause. Not an inch. It is right where it was. It may not have leapt forward but it certainly wasn’t set back as the four dissenting justices were all set to do.
Is there a limiting principle on what may be taxed? NO. We essentially will be burned at the stake using 87 octane vs 103 octane. Yeah for us!
What prompts a whole set of writers in conservative garb to outhouse pit dive for the one shinny penny on this case? Why are they so happy at the allegedly, and I stress the word, political upside that has to degrade the reputation of the court for playing it political? First you say the court kept its legitimacy intact. Then you ignore that your own side doesn’t think so quite so delightedly. Then you think that the political gamemanship this ruling puts into play won’t come across to your own ranks as politicizing the court? Are you people drinking your own ink. Is that what makes you so stupid? Are you so enamored of the taste of power for Republicans that you are making these stupid, circular and illogical points in favor of Roberts’ decision?
Like many, I first thought that this decision was very bad news. Now I am not so sure. The rationale for declaring this a tax is very weak, but now Obama and the Democrats are stuck with it. The Republicans can now play up the tax angle and get an edge in the November election. I first thought that the tax opened up a huge can of worms. The government can now tax us for not buying something. This is true in theory, but in practice, it would be extremely difficult because most people do not want new taxes. That is why Obama vehemently denied that this was a tax. The Democrats won’t dare try to take advantage of the ruling for a long time, time enough to get the ruling changed. Meanwhile, it can work to the advantage of those who want a smaller government. It can get Romney elected president if he plays this well, and that could mean that he will appoint a couple of new members to the Supreme Court. What’s more, the Commerce Clause has been defanged, as has the Necessary and Proper Clause. This may work out well in the end.
Howdy! Do you utilize Twitter? I might like to observe you if that would be okay. I am undoubtedly having fun with your weblog and stay up for new updates.