Posted on 07/04/2012 2:48:11 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Exactly! It looks to me that Roberts has done to I.8.1 what Wickard and Raich did to the Commerce Clause. Comparing Madison and Roberts:
Madison on I.8.1:
A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html
____________________________________________________________
Roberts on I.8.1
Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.
Of course, if Thomas Jefferson were Chief Justice, and had four like minds to vote with him, we could haul about 95% of the United States Code out to the dumpster, and the vast majority of the Code of Federal Regulations to boot.
He is? For real? He's about AWESOME.
Maybe if you (third party, of course) mentioned his name
a few more times folks might pay attention to "him".
Who?
It seems what is needed is to tax an otherwise protected behavior that is near and dear to the hearts of the left. They will have to accept it as Constitutional or challenge it.
No they wont -- not after what has happened in the wake of the decision.
What they'll do is going back to expanding deductions. Instead of penalizing everyone for not painting houses white, they'll give a tax credit to those that do paint their houses, while letting the slow increase in wages raise the tax liability of everyone else.
Mathematically there's no difference between this and levying a penalty. But giving deductions sounds a lot better than raising taxes.
How many oppose the tax deduction for interest on mortgages? Those that don't pay big interest on mortgage debt pay more in taxes, don't they? Sounds like the government would like us to borrow more money and penalizes us if we don't. Buying educational services? You'll pay more in taxes if you don't.
Had Roberts ruled that such things were unconstitutional, there would be fury over the increase in taxes paid as deductions were eliminated.
Tax the entertainment industry to pay for social security.
Had Roberts ruled that such things were unconstitutional, there would be fury over the increase in taxes paid as deductions were eliminated.
Those are income tax issues and fall under the authority of the 16th Amendment rather than I.8.1.
The last thing President Madison did in office was to veto a highway bill that had been sent to him under the “general welfare” clause because he could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed him to use the tax money of one group of Americans to benefit another group of Americans.
Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you an actual patriot, President Madison.
bookmark
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
This case did not involve the income tax.
It does involve the income tax, but that's not the part of the 16th that's most important here.
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
THAT's the part that's dangerous. It gives congress a free hand to levy any income tax using whatever criteria they wish.
Take away the second part of the amendment and congress would be force to deal fairly with everyone. They couldn't pick and choose who to help and who to punish with a larger tax.
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;
Here's a link to the decision. Point out where you think the 16th Amendment is at issue...
"(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Courts precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 4041.
"It need not be apportioned" follows directly from the 16th amendment as this tax is a tax on income and not a direct tax covered by Art. I, §9, cl. 4. and income taxes are specifically exempted of the requirement that they be apportioned.
This is not a tax on income. As your citation says, it is a tax on going without health insurance. The authority cited by the Court is from I.8.1.
Ask yourself this. Suppose the 16th Amendment did not exist. Would this ruling have been any different? My answer is 'no'.
It's both.
Those without insurance pay a larger tax on their income than those with insurance.
The very same thing happens when some people don't buy solar panels for their house or they don't purchase educational services -- they will pay more income tax than those that get the deductions or credits for those purchases. Mathematically it's the same thing.
Politically, though, perception of the two is different. Congress didn't want to be seen as increasing taxes, though that's what they did. And they didn't want to be seen giving deductions, since their constituents would see that giving taxpayers a tax break.
But it isn't perception and deceptive language that matters when trying to come to a correct judgement. If someone calls a tax a "penalty" in order to fool voters, it doesn't change the fact that the thing being called a "penalty" is still a tax. A tax is as a tax does.
Had Roberts ruled that such things were unconstitutional, there would be fury over the increase in taxes paid as deductions were eliminated.
There is simply no way he could have ruled such deductions unconstitutional since the 16th Amendment was not involved. Again, suppose the 16th Amendment did not exist. Would that have changed this ruling?
Revision to my prior post: I don’t agree that this is an income tax.
Consider a deduction for solar panels. It's very unlikely that the proportion of citizens taking a deduction for solar panels in Maine would equal the proportion of citizens taking the deduction in California.
The disproportionate tax burden that would arise between the states of Maine and California would make such tax law unconstitutional.
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.