Skip to comments.Roberts Clarifies: Mandate is a Tax...Not a Penalty [For Campaign Purposes]
Posted on 07/27/2012 12:38:40 PM PDT by 92nina
In the weeks following the Supreme Court's ruling on the healthcare mandate, President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly stated to the public that the individual mandate contained in Obamacare is not a tax. The Democrats' hard line stance that the mandate is not a tax is illogical, as evidenced by Chief Justice Robert's constitutional analysis of the individual mandate.
Contrary to President Obama and the Democrat's interpretation of the mandate, Justice Roberts made ten key points in his analysis on why the mandate is a tax, and not a penalty:
Justice Robert's concluded his analysis by stating that Obamacare's "requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may...be characterized as a tax."
Read more: http://atr.org/roberts-clarifies-mandate-tax-penalty-a7072#ixzz21qxqSjsz
Roberts knows Obama does not have to go by his language. It’s a penalty. It was only a tax for the purpose of the decision. Now it’s a penalty again, which it always was. And Roberts knows that.
I’ve heard enough out of you, Mr. Roberts.
Roberts, you voted with Kagan, Sotormayor, Ginsburg and Breyer....so it really doesn’t matter what the hell you think.
I hear you, and it makes me feel torn about it. Then again, even if the GOP doesn’t have 60 seats in the Senate in Jan. 2013, so long as they also have the House, they can use Reconciliation to get rid of the Individual Mandate, as the taxing power covers it, according to Roberts. (Of course they need a president who opposes Obamacare to sign it.)
I agree. Roberts betrayed his own judicial philosophy by allowing the lawyers a multiple choice answer. The fact will always remain that the law was NOT passed as a tax. His name is mud.
It is an effing tax, period. If you don’t pay a tax THEN you get a penalty. What?!
If it was presented as a tax wouldn't it be passed as a tax as well?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about
or do you believe you know what you're talking about?
Ping to reply #8.
Sorry, Robbie, but if I’m taxed because I DON’T own a picture of Obama, then I’m being penalized.
If I’m not taxed because I do own a picture of Obama, then I’m not being penalized.
Try to explain it away all you want, but the obvious is still the obvious.
I doubt the GOP would overturn it if they had 65 Senators.
It’s a tax on being alive. Period.
**** roberts... he is just a white version of a kenyan communist.
I appreciate you showing us this resource, it is useful, so thank you, and thanks to the original compiler. All in all, lots of unsurprising double-talk by Democrats on the definition of the Individual Mandate.
Just more proof that when it’s said that “everyone knows that ‘such and such’ is ‘so and so’” isn’t always ‘so and so’ and that what “everyone knows” often isn’t what actually is.
I am not talking about how it was presented, I am talking about how it was passed by Congress. With all the difficulty of it being passed as a penalty, do you actually think it would have passed had it been passed, by Congress, as a tax? Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed. All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!
All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!
THEY LIED! They lied straight to your face smiling all the while. Don't you get it?!
The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.
It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.
Here's another reply of mine with link to an article with some more info showing that it was always a tax...It Was Always a Tax
The brief that administration lawyers filed on behalf of President Obama argued at length that the mandate is a tax.
Well, from what I have read of the first day’s oral arguments, it was argued as a penalty. When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax. You are right, we were lied to by everyone. The good side is that now, even after Pelosi and Obama and others denying it was a tax, it can now be easier to overturn. But who knows what else is hidden in the document which is equal in size to several War and Peaces.
II. IF THE COURT REACHES THE QUESTION, IT SHOULD HOLD THAT THE ACT IS SEVERABLE FROM THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION EXCEPT FOR THE GUARANTEED-ISSUE AND COMMUNITY-RATING PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IN 2014
Sol Gen - "Oh, the Commerce Clause doesn't cover it, Your Honor?"
USSC - "No, it doesn't."
Sol Gen - "Then uphold the individual mandate as it falls under the taxing power of Congress as we presented in our brief."
USSC - "You got it."
Sol Gen - "Thank you, Your Honor."
The way I understand it is that the power of taxation resides in the House, not the Senate. The Senate cannot attach taxation to a bill at the 11th hour that had not been approved by the House, but it appears they did it anyway.
It did start in the House.
As you can see from that first link it got hijacked along the way.
Still can’t see how people can be singled out for not purchasing something,is there not supposed to be something called equal protection in the law,taxes are supposed to be apportioned to everyone not just certain groups
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.