Posted on 07/16/2012 7:39:03 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
To uphold the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice Roberts adopted a “saving construction” in which he deleted the “requirement” that all non-exempt Americans buy health insurance, leaving only the “penalty,” which he then recharacterized as a tax. The next day, in my Washington Examiner essay, Roberts decision didn’t open floodgates for ‘compulsion through taxation’, I contended that it was a serious misreading of the opinion to say that the individual insurance mandate had been upheld under the Tax power. Instead, the law had been rewritten to eliminate the mandate, leaving only the penalty. Some questioned the meaningfulness of this distinction.
Today, in their essay, The Mandate After the Court, James Capretta & Yuval Levin explain how this aspect of Roberts’ unique opinion weakens the already weak penalties, thereby undermining the statute’s ability to prevent the insurance death spiral its other insurance company regulations will cause.
The CBO clearly understood the mandate to consist of the federal government ordering people to buy coverage. In a 2010 paper explaining its assessment of the mandate, the agency said the law meant that “nearly every resident of the United States will be required to have health insurance coverage.” That paper also makes clear that the CBO understood the mandate and the penalty as two distinct if related components of the law, each with its own effect on public behavior, and that the fact of the mandate as a legal requirement was very important. The effects of the mandate would not just be a matter of math but would be influenced by people’s inclination to be honest and “their desire to comply with the law” ordering them to buy coverage….
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Thanks InvisibleChurch.
Roberts adopted kids were threatened so he paid his dues, to Obama.
There never was a more dirtier deed do’er than Obama/
‘Instead, the law had been rewritten to eliminate the mandate,’
In other words Roberts violated the Constitution TWICE in one ruling: first by not striking down the entire law under the commerce clause as unconstitutional: second by acting as a one man super legislature and writing and implementing laws. What reason is there not to impeach this jack wagon!?
BUMP!
@Merit Briefs
@Brief for Respondents on Severability
@Reply Brief for Respondent's on Severability
Use the "Search" function and look up "question".
I'd rather not. Roberts treachery needs no further explanation than the lawless embrace of tyranny by a statist central government.
bump!
Roberts treachery needs no further explanation than the lawless embrace of tyranny by a statist central government.
My, my, yet another "Two Minutes Hate".
Yeah, Still don’t care to read it.
Thanks anyway. Sorry you had to do all that searching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqxWa9Rbe0
I could always read up and become more learned.
You will always be an asshole!
No, just a straight up asshole.
You wear it well.
I do not need to know more about WHY Roberts chose to break his vow to God and rewrite legislation and ignore an easily understood document like the Constitution. He decided to do so. That in and of itself, is reason enough to hold this jack wagon up to an impeachment. Regardless if the Senate would ever convict and remove.
The citizenry has every right to expect the SCOTUS to rule in a CONSTITUTIONAL and, possibly more importantly, a CONSISTANT manner. The need for reams of paper to put to bed the issue that the Federal Government does or doesn't have the right to force a citizen in a free society to engage in economic activity with a third party or face a penalty/tax/tax/penalty, Whatever, doesn't take a JD from HAAAAAAAARVARD or even a law degree. It is COMMON SENSE. That is why so few lawyers and other practitioners of the lying arts can't figure it out. That is also why, since this morally bankrupt Chief Justice has decided that the government CAN cause a person to be penalized/taxed for NOT doing something, it is reasonable to assume that we no longer live in a free society.
Your desire to somehow PROVE that he did anything reasonable, or even sane, in his ruling is tiring.
Simply calling someone ignorant doesn't make it so, but judging from your history on this site, there seems to be a consensus that you are indeed an asshole, ignorant or otherwise.
These are your words...I could always read up and become more learned.
You could, but you won't.
Keeping yourself ignorant allows you to continue in the same manner you are now.
Simply calling someone ignorant doesn't make it so...
Nope, your own words and inaction make it so. It's your own doing, not mine.
...but judging from your history on this site, there seems to be a consensus that you are indeed an asshole, ignorant or otherwise.
Oh, my! I'm supposed to be worried about some nebulous "consensus"?
I'll not be Delphi'd! (Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus)
Not working on me, Mr. Facilitator.
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.