SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[Ibanez]

From Roberts

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

[clenz]

So basically.....they can start taxing anyone for not having a personal trainer as part of Michelle's health initiative....


Wow.

[CitadelGrad]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

[danefan]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

The taxing authority was an alternative argument put forth by the Government....so SCOTUS did nothing but accept that argument.

[Ibanez]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

Well, SCOTUS gave the direction, so now you would assume that the law would have to be modified to be a tax, not a requirement. Roberts said, the gov't can't force you to buy a product, but they can penalize you for not participating.

[danefan]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

Well, SCOTUS gave the direction, so now you would assume that the law would have to be modified to be a tax, not a requirement. Roberts said, the gov't can't force you to buy a product, but they can penalize you for not participating.

The penalty under the mandate is already part of the tax code. The law does not need to be modified.

[Ibanez]

Well, SCOTUS gave the direction, so now you would assume that the law would have to be modified to be a tax, not a requirement. Roberts said, the gov't can't force you to buy a product, but they can penalize you for not participating.

The penalty under the mandate is already part of the tax code. The law does not need to be modified.

Thanks. How much do I owe for the analysis?

[danefan]

The penalty under the mandate is already part of the tax code. The law does not need to be modified.

Thanks. How much do I owe for the analysis?

On the house . I'm just regurgitating the same thing I've said for 2 years now.

[danefan]

I do think one thing is weird with Roberts's decision (on a quick read of the syllabus).

He says the mandate must be a tax if it is to stand and just because it's not labeled a "tax" doesn't mean it can't fall under the taxing power.

But then he goes on to analyze the constitutionality of the tax under the taxing power despite the Anti-injunction law which forbids rulings on taxes until they are actually enforced (the penalty is not effective until 2014). But the reasoning he uses to avoid the anti-injunction law is that the mandate isn't called a "tax".

So it doesn't matter that its not called a tax for the taxing powers analysis, but it does matter for purposes of ripeness of the issue?

Seems inconsistent to me, but I've only read the syllabus.

[Seahawks08]

Voting for Romney soley based on this will be a mistake imo. He may tweek it, but I don't see him repealing it.

[danefan]

Voting for Romney soley based on this will be a mistake imo. He may tweek it, but I don't see him repealing it.

The only thing Romney could do is drive the direction of the Treasury Department which has to enforce the mandate under the Tax Code.

If you want to vote for someone who will repeal it, I'd suggest finding someone running for Congress.

[GannonFan]

Kind of like I said at the start - if they had called it a tax when they first passed this, probably none of this would've been necessary.

Of course, now that we know we can pass taxes without calling them taxes, I would expect to see mandates all over the place and we'll never have a tax increase. "I'm not raising taxes, I'm just establishing mandates". The English language is wonderfully nuanced.

[danefan]

Kind of like I said at the start - if they had called it a tax when they first passed this, probably none of this would've been necessary.

Of course, now that we know we can pass taxes without calling them taxes, I would expect to see mandates all over the place and we'll never have a tax increase. "I'm not raising taxes, I'm just establishing mandates". The English language is wonderfully nuanced.

"Hiding" things in the tax code is not a new endeavor. Congress has done it for years.

But like I said for two years - despite what they may say in the press, Congress knew they were setting the penalty up as a tax even if they called it something else. They put it in the Tax Code.

[bobbythekidd]

Next week will be ironic as we celebrate our independence from a government that steeped heavy taxes on us.

[andy7171]

Next week will be ironic as we celebrate our independence from a government that steeped heavy taxes on us.

Hey Bobbo, we want a new game!

[Ibanez]

Next week will be ironic as we celebrate our independence from a government that steeped heavy taxes on us.

Hey Bobbo, we want a new game!

NObody cares Andy. You are so CWS.

[dbackjon]

So basically, the opinion of the majority is that the mandate is pretty much a tax. Brilliant. So i guess it's okay for us to pay taxes to private businesses now. I say we start paying taxes to all the donk's trial lawyer friends and cut out the middle men.

You know, I was pretty sure I was going to vote third party or indy but I think I've got to go with Romney now. This abortion of a health care "reform" law needs to be destroyed.

You do realize that RomneyCare was basically the same thing as this, don't ya?

[OL FU]

I do think one thing is weird with Roberts's decision (on a quick read of the syllabus).

He says the mandate must be a tax if it is to stand and just because it's not labeled a "tax" doesn't mean it can't fall under the taxing power.

But then he goes on to analyze the constitutionality of the tax under the taxing power despite the Anti-injunction law which forbids rulings on taxes until they are actually enforced (the penalty is not effective until 2014). But the reasoning he uses to avoid the anti-injunction law is that the mandate isn't called a "tax".

So it doesn't matter that its not called a tax for the taxing powers analysis, but it does matter for purposes of ripeness of the issue?

Seems inconsistent to me, but I've only read the syllabus.

Interesting so does that mean he is saying once the tax is implemented, the issue can be brought in front of the court again. Personally, I hope not just because I don't think we need to continually re-address the issue, but just curious?

[Rob Iola]

Wow. In reading about the Obamacare ruling, I stumbled upon a ruling earlier in the day. SCOTUS found that lies are protected under the first amendment and it is not a crime to lie about earning military medals.

Hot damn. My resume just got a little but longer.

Signed,
93henfan, MOH, PH w/ three oak leaf clusters

You're no Hogan...

[GannonFan]

So basically, the opinion of the majority is that the mandate is pretty much a tax. Brilliant. So i guess it's okay for us to pay taxes to private businesses now. I say we start paying taxes to all the donk's trial lawyer friends and cut out the middle men.

You know, I was pretty sure I was going to vote third party or indy but I think I've got to go with Romney now. This abortion of a health care "reform" law needs to be destroyed.

You do realize that RomneyCare was basically the same thing as this, don't ya?

Although in Romney's case he has basically called what he did as a mistake. I suppose politicians are allowed to evolve their views on issues over time, don't you agree?

[andy7171]

You do realize that RomneyCare was basically the same thing as this, don't ya?

Although in Romney's case he has basically called what he did as a mistake. I suppose politicians are allowed to evolve their views on issues over time, don't you agree?

Only if it involves gay marriage.

[Ibanez]

You do realize that RomneyCare was basically the same thing as this, don't ya?

Although in Romney's case he has basically called what he did as a mistake. I suppose politicians are allowed to evolve their views on issues over time, don't you agree?

No. ONce a politician has a stance on a topic, he can't change. We can't expect people to grow and improve thier positions.

[Pwns]

Although in Romney's case he has basically called what he did as a mistake. I suppose politicians are allowed to evolve their views on issues over time, don't you agree?

More specifically, evolving their views on what office they are currently holding or running for.

[CitadelGrad]

SCOTUS upholds the mandate as a tax, but Congress and Obama claim it is not a tax. If it is a tax and Congress did not levy the tax, then who did? The only answer is that SCOTUS levied the tax. Levying taxes is a congressional, not judicial power. SCOTUS has once again usurped congressional authority.

The taxing authority was an alternative argument put forth by the Government....so SCOTUS did nothing but accept that argument.

That's odd. There are plenty of instances of congressional Dems and Obama claiming that it isn't a tax. I guess it's a tax when it suits their purposes and not a tax when it suits their purposes.

[danefan]

I do think one thing is weird with Roberts's decision (on a quick read of the syllabus).

He says the mandate must be a tax if it is to stand and just because it's not labeled a "tax" doesn't mean it can't fall under the taxing power.

But then he goes on to analyze the constitutionality of the tax under the taxing power despite the Anti-injunction law which forbids rulings on taxes until they are actually enforced (the penalty is not effective until 2014). But the reasoning he uses to avoid the anti-injunction law is that the mandate isn't called a "tax".

So it doesn't matter that its not called a tax for the taxing powers analysis, but it does matter for purposes of ripeness of the issue?

Seems inconsistent to me, but I've only read the syllabus.

Interesting so does that mean he is saying once the tax is implemented, the issue can be brought in front of the court again. Personally, I hope not just because I don't think we need to continually re-address the issue, but just curious?

No - what I think he's saying is that he didn't have to wait until it became effective to rule on it. The issues is settled now.