Is anyone else as confused about the Supreme Court decision as I am? It is legal under Congress' constitutional powers as a taxing authority, but it wasn't promoted as a tax, wasn't argued as a tax, is not in the bill as a tax, and still the Democrats still will not admit to it being a tax. Is there anything about this that makes sense, or am I just expecting too much from Washington?
It doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, under the Anti-Injunction Act, if it is a tax, then the trial cannot be heard until someone pays the tax, which is not until 2014.
Chief Justice Roberts ignored the Anti-Injunction Act to proceed with the case. It also appears that he was originally siding with the conservative justices + Kennedy. It seems he was swayed by the media onslaught back in May regarding the potential outcome of this ruling. Deeply troubling, lifetime tenure is supposed to sheild them from political influence.
There are several things to take from this IMO:
1. Taxing power broadly expanded - the bad is obvious, the good is that taxes are unpopular and to pass a bill as a tax it will be harder than merely calling something a penalty. Plus tax bills must originate in the House. Of course, this requires truth in labeling and a court that will not simply bail out the Congress.
2. Some state soveriegnty is actually protected by the ruling that the Feds cannot take away existing Medicaid funds if states refuse to participate in the expansion, meaning they seem to be able to opt out of Obamacare. This could potentially be a big deal. But it could also work to Obama's advantage by him manipulating and saying that the system is broke and this is just one more reason we need a single payer system.
3. November just became that much more important.
4. Unlike what everyone says, Roberts did NOT restrain the Commerce Clause. His comments on the Commerse Clause came in his dictum and is not binding.
Another odd thing about the decision is where this mandate fits in as a tax. The Constitution outlines 4 types of taxes that the federal government can levy against the citizens. 1) Direct taxes which are apportioned between the states; 2) Duties and Excise taxes which must be consistently applied to all citizens; 3) Proportional or Value-Added taxes which are imposed on things with value (i.e. property taxes); 4) Income taxes on all types of income earned.
I have no idea where a tax imposed on inactivity directed at just a select group of citizens fits in anywhere in these taxes approved in the Constitution. I mean, by this rationale you could go into a store looking for a pair of pants, not like any of the styles that are available and when you try to leave the store could say, “Since you chose not to buy any pants we need to collect a couple of bucks tax to send into the government before you leave.” It sounds ridiculous, but it really is the same thing as what the Supreme Court upheld as a tax. Makes no sense at all. At least it is comical to see all these Democrats getting on TV and staunchly stating that no matter what the Supreme Court ruled, the mandate really is a penalty and not a tax and the Court was completely wrong.
Woah, woah, woah, why are you trying to bring up the Constitution.
That was written by a bunch of old white guys, like, a long time ago. It's not relevant, I heard on Twitter that Obama signed an executive order giving him the power to tax however he wanted. So I just went and liked him on facebook.
Constitution, humph, that's so old-school.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.