Skip to comments.ObamaCare Upheld as a Tax, But It's Not the End of the World
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:05:08 PM PDT by Sark
This morning, the United States Supreme Court released its ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that the individual mandate is constitutional, but only as a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in this majority opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the entirety of the law was unconstitutional. To put it bluntly, this is a very complicated ruling that few expected in its given form.
(Excerpt) Read more at principlesandpolicy.wordpress.com ...
If it is a TAX, did the Congress pass such a tax under the proper procedures? As I recall the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, and it was not actually “passed” by the house, it was “deemed passed”.
Does the legislative process which gave us this law stand-up to Congressional standards? If not, can the law itself be further challenged from a procedual standpoint?
Great article. Don’t mean to hi-jack.
I wasn’t surprised by the votes by the two Dykes or the female troll.
Roberts did surprise me.
We might begin to keep a sharp look on his bank account.
I don’t know what he got, but he sure sold us down the river.
Now that it is a tax, all that is needed is 50 senate votes to repeal it.
The gyrlz ruled that the Commerce Clause give plenty of cover for the mandate. Roberts being the sensitive type said nope, but I can make the penalty a tax and then find no problem in imposing crazy taxes without a Constitutional Amendment, unlike the Income Tax required.
The logical and personal liberty Justices wanted to flush the whole thing and Roberts threw them a bone on Medicaid Expansion, no severablility in the language of the bill not withstanding.
My thoughts as well. Where does the bill describe such a “tax”? Until the law is rewritten to describe the penalty as a tax and go through the proper bill procedures related to taxation I don’t see how it can be implemented. I just don’t think this thing is over yet.
What is clear however is that John Roberts is a liberal without any common sense and not a very smart one at that. His ruling makes no sense.
“November 7, 2009 — The House of Representatives passes a version of the sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215”
I need to look into it more, but I’ve heard about this argument today and I think it’s a really interesting one. The left might argue that the tax isn’t meant to be one that raises revenue, but one that only raises revenue incidentally, through the punishment of mandate-dodgers. That would be my guess. I also think that the chances are that we’ll repeal it in January, before a case on this point would make it back to the Court. But I’m an optimist.
Not the end of the world?
The Supreme Court just said that Congress can FORCE you to buy anything as long as it’s a “tax”.
In a few years, you’re going to be stunned at just how many “taxes” you’re going to be forced to buy.
Of course its not the endo of the world but it is the end of a free America.....
B***S**T, it's not the end of the world but it is the end of the notion that there is limit on government. Very sad day.
Tell that to all the business owners who will be forced to close their doors and all of the people who will soon have no job.
#&^@* Socialists should all burn.
I don’t get this.Was the law written as a tax or a mandate?if the latter then a court cannot make it a tax after the fact.
Here’s a short summary on one avenue that can be used to repeal the ObamaTax now that it has been ruled to be a revenue generating tool.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacares health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law or even the full law itself.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) seemed open to that approach during a speech at The Heritage Foundation shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision. The courts ruling does present some options for us to pursue more unconventional options for repeal, DeMint said. He mentioned reconciliation as a potential avenue.
A senior Senate Republican aide involved in the repeal effort later confirmed to Scribe that the GOP will use the budget reconciliation process in an attempt to repeal the full law, not just the portion requiring all Americans purchase health insurance.
While a repeal effort via reconciliation would only require a majority of senators to pass, Republicans will likely wait until next year to employ the tactic.
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he expects Republicans to use reconciliation in the repeal effort during the 113th Congress. Kyl is not running for reelection.
Mike Franc, Heritages Vice President of Government Studies, explained the details of reconciliations applicability thusly:
Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a tax, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Acts reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But todays decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern.
The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senates filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.
“can the law itself be further challenged from a procedual standpoint?”
Yes, but to WHO? As Levin noted this afternoon if it’s a Tax what kind of tax is it?
Is it an Income tax? Is it an Excise tax? Is it a never never land tax?
It started in the wrong house. We don’t know What kind of a tax it is but we now have Judicial Precedent for additional it’s an Unspecified Taxes, because we Said we do.
If it’s a monetary penalty for Inactivity it can’t be a Tax. It has to be a Fine.
And that means the decision is Crap, it doesn’t have any lawful force behind it, None. But WHO do we challenge it To since This incarnation of Looney Tunes playing at being Judges have just shown us that 5 of them are Incapable of getting even the most Basic, Entry Level of Constitutional understanding into their noggins.
Sending it back to these Justices is like sending it back to Daffy, Porky, Elmer, Bugs and Foghorn. We can Challenge it till we’re blue in the face but all this crop is going to do is speak Jabberwocky back at us.
Believe me you, I was livid when I heard the ruling. Now the more I think about this and analyse the “words” written concerning the decision, me thinks Justice Roberts was extremely crafty, this is not a dead issue, in fact I feel it has grown legs.
Question, considering the decision was based on The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States , then the previously issued exemptions should be invalidated. Also how do the other exemptions in the act stack up, such as, religious (Muslim) exemptions? Since this was ruled a tax not a mandate, unfailrly imposing a tax anyone not exempted is discrimination.
Please go to Mark Levin's site and download his show from today. Mark is a Constitutional scholar.
After listening to his show you will clearly see that this was a extremely destructive ruling. Mark said absolutely nothing good will come from this ruling. It is horrible, horrible for Liberty.
below is the show link,
I am curious, what happens to all the homeless, unemployed, occupy Wall Street types, etc.? Do they all have to choke up a huge amount of money every year or go to jail?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.