Skip to comments.Poll Tax & Health Care, What? RINO Roberts
Posted on 07/02/2012 9:37:44 AM PDT by donjuanluis07
If you read my recent post, "Supreme Court Upholds Poll Tax?" you might have a little trouble understanding why this is important to all Americans. The reason is simple, the decision made by the Supreme Court on the 28th of June, a day that will live in infamy, WAS ILLEGAL!!! Our constitution is clear about the power and type of authority the Federal Government has to levy taxes, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is barred by our Constitution from imposing a direct tax on individuals. In other words they may NOT impose a direct tax on an individual because he or she does not purchase a health care product.
(Excerpt) Read more at rinolist.org ...
The term direct tax generally means a tax paid directly to the government by the persons on whom it is imposed.
1 General meaning
2 U.S. constitutional law sense
1. General meaning
A direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juristic or natural) or on property, as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. Indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs; people have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person's very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use. Some commentators have argued that "a direct tax is one that cannot be shifted by the taxpayer to someone else, whereas an indirect tax can be."
The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty. An 18th century writing about this kind of taxation explained: The power of direct taxation applies to every individual ... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments... The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual ... however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain. 
2. U.S. constitutional law sense
In the United States, the term "direct tax" has acquired specific meaning under constitutional law: a direct tax is a tax on property "by reason of its ownership" (such as an ordinary real estate property tax imposed on the person owning the property as of January 1 of each year) as well as a capitation (a "tax per head"). In the late 19th century, U.S. courts also began to treat an income tax on income from property as a direct tax. In U.S. constitutional law, an "indirect tax" or "excise" is an "event" tax. In this sense, a transfer tax (such as gift tax and estate tax) is an indirect tax. Income taxes on income from personal services such as wages are also indirect taxes in this sense. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated: "Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [ . . . ], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property."
In the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes), this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes).
Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Historical and Judicial. 1. Boston: The Boston Book Co.. pp. 415423.
1. ^ Britannica Online, Article on Taxation. See also Financial Dictionary Online, Article on Direct taxes.
2. ^ The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, of the State of Pennsylvania, to their constituents.
3. ^ See, e.g., the United States Supreme Court case of Fernandez v. Wiener, in which the Court stated that a direct tax is a tax "which falls upon the owner merely because he is owner, regardless of his use or disposition of the property." Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S. Ct. 178, 45-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶10,239 (1945).
4. ^ A capitation is defined as a "poll tax". Black's Law Dictionary, p. 191 (5th ed. 1979). A poll tax is defined as a "capitation tax; a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1043 (5th ed. 1979). For background, see generally Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433 (1868); and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (hereinafter Brushaber).
5. ^ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (hereinafter Pollock).
6. ^ Also, see generally subsection (d), paragraph (3) of 26 U.S.C. § 7602. See also 26 U.S.C. § 2056A, subsection (b); 26 U.S.C. § 2701, subsection (d); 26 U.S.C. § 4961; 26 U.S.C. § 4962; 26 U.S.C. § 4963.
7. ^ See generally Pollock.
8. ^ Opinion on rehearing, July 3, 2007, p. 20, Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States, case no. 05-5139, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,531 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (dicta).
9. ^ See generally Brushaber, above. In the context of income taxes on wages, salaries and other forms of compensation for personal services, see, e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990) (tax evasion conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer's argument -- that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable -- was rejected by the Court; taxpayer's argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984) (26 U.S.C. § 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be "in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states"; taxpayer's argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 1570., United States District Court W. D. Texas, Austin Division., February 9, 1966
HYLTON, Plaintiff in Error, versus the UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. 1794
I may have supported Obamacare if they would have made it so that you had to prove you had some form of personal medical insurance before you could VOTE.
That at least would have solved a few problems in this country.
I get the sarcasm, but I still want poor people to have the right to vote. Its not the poor that create dependency, its turncoat Republicans like George Bush who create an extension of Medicare, and let Ted Kennedy mess with education and let McCain create McCain-Feingold. Thats the problem, hence the website!
Sorry, but Roberts NEVER claims to say its a tax on income, that would be stupid. Please re-read the comment, income is a circumstance, not the rational mentioned by Roberts. Besides, there is NO declaration of what type of tax this is, and is most likely due to the reasons for getting taxed, the rationale in other words, that it is a direct tax. Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer, already commented on this. Please see his Thursday show from last week, its free. Regrettably, I do not agree with you.
...that was upheld by Justice Roberts, aka: Johnny Bobby...
The "johnny-bobby.jpg" gave it away.
You might want to get a title correction going Admin Mod.
Try the parent link. The link I posted is the notes link at the bottom. http://www.rinolist.org/2012/06/supreme-court-upholds-poll-tax-on-americans/
That's not correct.
You are confusing the way the penalty for non-compliance is measured with the incidence of the penalty.
The mandate is not TRIGGERED by the receipt by a taxpayer of an item of income or gain. If it were, it would indeed be an income tax.
The mandate by its own terms applies to people as a class, subject to certain class exemptions.
Where the income test comes in is in the measurement of the penalty.
In a way, it is reminiscent of the way fines for breaking traffic laws are imposed in certain Scandinavian countries.
There, if you are caught for speeding, the amount of the fine varies depending on your income. Higher income individuals who break the speeding laws pay a higher fine than lower income laws.
Technically, that does not change the traffic law into an income tax.
It's the same situation with the ObamaCare mandate.
A very finely stated rebuttal. Thank you kind sir. /hattip
“I may have supported Obamacare if they would have made it so that you had to prove you had some form of personal medical insurance before you could VOTE.”
I believe that would require an amendment, as states determine voting qualifications beyond certain fundamentals, as in they can’t deny the vote on the basis of race, sex, or age over 17.
“tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, ‘without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.’”
That “any other circumstance” is ridiculous. Most people today recognize the term “poll tax” as taxes on the voting privilege, which are illgeal. I could argue, according to your quote, that wishing to vote is an “other circumstance” which the government is rationally allowed to tax. But no, we treat it like it’s a head tax, with good reason. It is.
See, the problem here is that unlike possession of land, income, purchase and consumption of goods, importing, etc., there is no activity to tax. You cannot tax the choice not to buy insurance, if there is a choice—some never buy without any specific thought either way—because no one knows when the choice is made. The feds are left with taxing the condition of being an adult citizen not in the possession of insurance, which as people have put it is a tax on breathing.
It is a head tax, and it is illegal.
If it's based on income isn't it an "income" tax?
Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer, already commented on this.
Ah, I see the sun rises and sets by Levin for you so there is no need to even continue this conversation any further.
So if it's not an income tax as you contend, then in your opinion what kind of tax is it?
So because he says the word income several times, its now an income tax. You can quote to death, but that does not make it what you say it is. Its NOT how the tax is calculated as what determines the type of tax, but what triggers it. You can pass a toll tax, but tax differently due to type of car, luxury vs. compact. You could, with your logic, call that an income tax too. But its what TRIGGERS the tax that determines what the tax is, so, in my illustration, its a toll tax. And OBAMACARE, but Robert’s decision, is a poll tax.
“The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstancesearning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance”
The “certain amount of income” stipulation is a sop to progressivism, because all taxes must have the appearance of soaking the rich even if they will mainly fall on middle and lower classes as in this case. Also, they already have this massive bureaucracy set up to track people’s income, called IRS, and it’s a convenient way to get at evil antisocial freeloaders. So in a small way income is involved in deciding whether or not you get taxed, but not for any but the poor, but not enough to be legal.
Since those who reach a “certain amount of income” who do have insurance coverage won’t be taxed, clearly not having coverage is what’s being taxed. That’s the deciding factor, once you exclude those below a certain level. Aside from them the income part is merely the means of getting at those without coverage. And since taxing people without coverage is a head tax, it is not within the government’s power to do so.
“If it’s based on income isn’t it an ‘income’ tax?”
It’s not based on income. It’s based on whether or not you own an insurance policy. Income may exclude certain people, and among those who qualify income may determine how much you pay. But only the wilfully blind on that basis will call it an income tax.
No matter what your income, if you are covered by insurance you are not taxed. That makes it a tax on not having insurance. That means it is not an income tax. Income taxes are taxes triggered by certain kinds and amounts of income. This tax is triggered by not being insured. It’s as simple as that.
First of all, in reality it is not a tax at all. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy were right about this in their dissent.
It is written in the same manner as non-tax laws are customarily written:
1. “You must do x or not do y” [obey the posted speed limit, report to the draft board, not embezzle, maintain a health insurance policy, or whatever]
2. “If you do not comply with statement 1, the following penalty applies” [pay a fine, be incarcerated, or whatever]
Anyway, that is water under the bridge. Under our system, the Supreme Court has the final say on how things are considered for purposes of the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that a horse is a camel for purposes of the Constitution, then a horse is a camel as far as the Constitution is concerned.
So Roberts has said it is a tax. What kind of a tax is it?
Roberts called it a “tax on not obtaining health insurance.”
So it is a tax on NOT doing something. If someone DOES something, then then that person is not subject to the tax.
If you are sitting on your couch and don’t do anything, then you are taxed.
On the other hand, if someone else gets up off his or her couch and goes out and meets with a nice insurance salesman and signs a wonderful contract with him, then that person is NOT taxed.
The essential point I make is this: the fact that Congress has exempted a category of people who get up off their couch and go buy an insurance contract DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that they are taxing YOU for NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A tax that does not attach to some type of activity (a purchase of a gallon of gasoline, the making of a liter of whiskey or whatever), that expressly taxes a person who does nothing at all, is a DIRECT TAX.
If it attached to the taking of an action, then it would be an EXCISE TAX.
But when Congress has taxed you for just sitting on your couch, that cannot be an excise tax, because there is no action or transaction undertaken by you as a predicate for the triggering of the tax.
The fact that Congress has exempted people who DO take actions does not change the fact that they are taxing YOU for doing nothing, and therefore cannot change the direct tax on you into an excise tax on you.
The Constitution does not permit the Congress to lay a direct tax on the people, unless it is apportioned among the states by population.
They did not want Congress to single out groups of people they did not like and tax them sitting on their couches.
Like taxing people who live in red states and not blue states.
Or taxing people who don’t eat broccoli every week.
Or taxing people who haven’t signed insurance contracts the government likes.
If they tax someone who does nothing but sit on his couch, under the Constitution that tax must be apportioned among the whole population.
That is why the “Roberts Tax” is unconstitutional.
Okay. Now I know where you stand as well.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
In my opinion, after reading the decision, the individual mandate is in fact an income tax and the "penalty" is a tax as well.
“Okay. Now I know where you stand.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.”
Now I know where you stand on me sharing my opinion. Thank you for thanking me for my opinion. (I can waste posts, too.)
Its not based on income.
What is "it's"? The penalty or the individual mandate?
“under the Constitution that tax must be apportioned among the whole population”
Apportioned among the states, you mean.
Correct. Its by state.
without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance
Oh, by the way, another point on how ridiculous and false is this statement. Were it true, there never would have been a 16th amendment, because the tax on having a certain amount of income would be perfectly legal. But it wasn’t, because income status did not prior to the 16th amendment reach taxable status because it was a head tax and would only be legal if apportioned among the states as stipulated in the Constitution.
It still is a head tax, by the way. Only it is specifically exempted from the ban on direct taxes by the aforementioned amendment. I’ve pretended myself in the past that the income tax is a tax on money coming into you. In other words, that it’s a tax on activity, as are duties, consumption taxes, etc. But it isn’t. The income tax is a tax on status. It is a tax on the condition of possessing a certain amount of money, for simplification’s sake, at the end of the year which you didn’t have the year before. It is, therefore, a direct tax. Which is why it had to be singled out for justification in the 16th amendment.
“’Its not based on income.’
‘What is “it’s”? The penalty or the individual mandate”
“It” is what it was in your post: the penalty/tax. The mandate, by the way, is now a phantom. It doesn’t actually exist, or to say the same thing has no legal force. Only the tax exists; the mandate is an explicit implication that in the eyes of SCOTUS does not rise to coercion because the so-called tax backing it up is justified.
I was looking for your determination as to what type of tax it is, not Roberts'.
Do you contend that's it's not a tax at all.
In my view it is not a tax.
What kind of a tax is it? Roberts called it a tax on not obtaining health insurance.
What you said:
Pretty close. What the decision actually says...
Um, ROBERTS USED THE EXACT WORDS I SAID HE USED IN DESCRIBING WHAT CONGRESS DID:
From page 40 of the slip opinion, quoting Roberts:
Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution....
I trade my labor/skills/knowledge evenly for a set amount.
I make no gain in doing so as my time and labor are the only thing I truly own.
If I make a financial gain from investing what I've made in that even trade (rent house, stocks, etc.) then that, to me, is the only thing that should be taxed.
If I'm never given the opportunity to make a gain, due to my labor being taxed beforehand in the form of an income tax, I'll never rise above a certain, limited level of wealth.
“How can a penalty exist if there is no mandate?”
Well, it’s not a “penalty,” is it? It’s now a tax. The “mandate” tells us who is to be taxed, but then it’s not a mandate. It’s an order without force of law clarifying the tax, which itself contains its own implied order.
What you have to understand, here, is that the law was rewritten by Roberts. The way it was passed there is a mandate and a penalty. The way it’s been interpreted is there’s a tax/penalty only. That’s because whereas the feds have no power to order you to own insurance they do have the power to tax.
Can you be unfamiliar with the tactic of social engineering via the tax code? Its simple. Whensoever governments don’t want to outright order behavior, because they lack the power or because they fear the people, they induce people by making things more or less expensive via taxes, subsidies, loopholes, etc. In this case since they cannot legally order people to buy insurance via the commerce clause or whatever, they are left with penalizing people through the tax code for not having insurance. Which SCOTUS says is okay, even though it would not be okay if all they had was the mandate with no tax behind it.
They’ll speak as if the madate still exists, but that’s just talk. It only exists in regards as it’s tied to the penalty as justified by the taxing power. It has no power on its own. They’ll use doublespeak like: “the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” That doesn’t means what it says. What the government asked and what Roberts gave them is for the penalty, not the mandate, to be a tax on those who don’t have insurance.
The mandate only tells us what are the conditions for being taxed, which does not constitute being a mandate.
You said...Roberts called it a tax on not obtaining health insurance.
So Roberts didn't call it a "tax on not obtaining health insurance" but Congress did.
“There’s nothing to penalize if the mandate doesn’t exist and it sure looks to me like the mandate exists as a tax.”
The mandate does not exist as a tax. The tax is the tax. The tax implies a mandate, to the extent that we don’t need explicit language to order us to buy insurance. That there is explicit language to that effect, which we call “the mandate” is a historical curiosity. It is a holdover from before Roberts turned the penalty into a tax.
You can persist in calling the tax a mandate, as most no doubt will. But that’s loose talk, and has nothing to do with actual law.
But everyone still has to either follow the mandate and buy insurance or pay the penalty tax, right?
It's "do one or the other", isn't it?
“To me the income tax is supposed to be a tax on gain”
It is, but they measure that by the amount of new wealth you possess, not on any activity. The reason prior to the 16th amendment they could tax imports, consumption, etc. is because those involved discreet activities. They didn’t tax the possession of whiskey with excise taxes, but the purchase thereof. To tax possession would be a direct tax.
Same with taxing income. If they taxed the exchange of money from the employer’s hand to yours like a sale, then it would be not be a head tax. But they don’t; they tax you according to how much you owen at the end of the year as compared to last year. And that is a direct tax.
“I trade my labor/skills/knowledge evenly for a set amount.
I make no gain in doing so as my time and labor are the only thing I truly own.
If I make a financial gain from investing what I’ve made in that even trade (rent house, stocks, etc.) then that, to me, is the only thing that should be taxed”
I don’t really understand the distinction. You do own your time and labor, but there’s nothing less “true” about how you own property. Your person and the activities in which you choose to participate are perhaps more fundamental and less abstract than how you own stock or land, for instance. But that shouldn’t make a difference, and actually doesn’t, as to whether they’re allowed to be taxed.
Roberts is characterizing what HE believes Congress did when he says Congress enacted a “tax on not obtaining health insurance.”
I do not believe it is a tax in reality. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy do not believe it is a tax in reality.
However I do not have a vote on the Supreme Court. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy do not have ENOUGH votes on the Supreme Court in this case.
If the Supreme Court says 5-4 that the emperor is wearing a fine new suit of clothes, then the emperor is wearing a fine new suit of clothes as far as the Constitution is concerned, no matter what the little boy in the crowd says.
Roberts and four justices ruled that Congress enacted a tax on not obtaining health insurance.
That is the law of the land.
I don’t believe they were right, the four dissenters do not believe they were right, but what ROBERTS said the Congress did IS NOW WHAT THE CONGRESS DID as far as the Constitution is concerned.
“I trade my labor/skills/knowledge evenly for a set amount.
I make no gain in doing so as my time and labor”
You absolutely do gain, and no one trades their whatever evenly and for a set amount. You are remunerated differently depending on what you’re doing and how others value it. If that weren’t true, no one would ever bother switching jobs.
“So Roberts didn’t call it a ‘tax on not obtaining health insurance’ but Congress did”
Congress said no such thing. The law as passed has it as a penalty for not following the mandate. Roberts changed it into a tax so as not to strike it down. If in doing so Roberts said Congress called it a tax, then he’s liar.
Anyway, what’s the difference? Obviously the decision is based on Roberts calling it a tax on not obtaining health insurance. Whether or not Congress also said so is irrelevant.
“But everyone still has to either follow the mandate and buy insurance or pay the penalty tax, right?
It’s ‘do one or the other’, isn’t it?”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean the mandate legally exists. The tax is all you need to make what say above true. The mandate is implied by the tax. That the mandate is also expressed in words is, like I said, a historical curiosity. It has no force of law.
All the law has to say is that if you don’t have insurance you will be taxed. Under normal circumstances it would be up to you to get the message that if you do buy insurance you won’t be taxed.
“Seems like the Government got what they wanted and now they’re stuck with it.”
What the government wanted, or at least that part that passed and signed onto Obamacare, was to nationalize the healthcare industry. They would prefer to do so without raising taxes on people who aren’t rich, or at least by fooling a majority of voters that it’ll only cost the rich. They’ll call it a tax before abandoning it, though, so they included in the defense the tax power rationale.
So, yes, they got what they wanted, but not all they wanted. This is not ideal, but they’ll take it.
Italo-American dialect of capisci
From Italian capisci, second person present tense form of capire (to understand), from Latin capere (to grasp, seize)
Often used in a threatening manner, suggesting the Italian Mafia.
You should really consider not using that word, Boss.
I think you 've got the cart before the horse, there, pardner. Congress created a tax, and put it into the tax code, to be treated as a tax, held against specified taxpayers, and enforced by the taxing authority.
Then Congress called it a penalty, because Congress is made up of politicians.
Roberts, being on the Court and, at least nominally, being paid to make things clear, pointed out that it's a tax in every way it was specified to function, and he wasn't going to be snowed by political labels about penalties.
Roberts is right. He did create anything - Congress did. He just had the balls to acknowledge what it defines itself as in it's own law - a tax.
And you know when you figure out whether you have to pay it? When you fill out your income tax form.
Roberts is right. He did not create anything - Congress did.
Congress said it IS NOT a tax. So Roberts did create something that Congress and the President said did not exist, a tax on my none action.
“Congress created a tax, and put it into the tax code, to be treated as a tax, held against specified taxpayers, and enforced by the taxing authority.
Then Congress called it a penalty, because Congress is made up of politicians.”
There are two pits we risk falling into with this issue: on one side is political semantics and the other legalese. Yes, Congress deliberately denied it was a tax because taxes are generally unpopular, unless you can convince people it doesn’t apply to them. Republicans are right to call it a tax politically speaking whether or not it actually is a tax because it does the same thing as a tax, i.e. raise money for the government.
As far as its technical legal definition, I don’t know. It’s more of a fine than a tax, but what’s the difference, really? The reason I call the original language a penalty or fine and the reason I know Roberts rewrote the law in the interest of slipping it past the Constitution is not so much that the bill called it a “penalty.” It’s because were it a tax like other taxes that aren’t fines/penalties there would have just been the tax, that’s it. Instead it had a mandate and a concomitant penalty.
Thing is, taxes are routinely written so as to influence behavior. But usually the carrot and sticks are implicit. COgnress doesn’t go around ordering people to do something persay; rather they tell them this is what will happen should they have this or that level income or this or buy this or that product. The mandate as laid out in the bill if only justified by the taxing power legally speaking doesn’t exist. It is empty verbiage.
SO why’s it in there? Because originally, i.e. before Roberts changed it, it was a mandate-penalty setup. Now it’s just a tax. Gone is the idea that you’re being penalized by having your money taken away should you not be covered. In is the idea that there’s a tax you can avoid if you buy insurance.
My outline is full of loopy logic and insane distinctions, I know, but such is supreme court jurisprudence.
“Roberts, being on the Court and, at least nominally, being paid to make things clear, pointed out that it’s a tax in every way it was specified to function, and he wasn’t going to be snowed by political labels about penalties.”
In doing so, you may have noticed, he erased the mandate. The reason everyone was blindsided by the decision is we were all focused on the constitutionality of the mandate. We assumed the ruling would primarily concern the commerce clause, because according to the way the bill is written the mandate is the hinge. Along comes Roberts, and all that matters is the tax. If the tax is constitutional so is the law, and who cares about the mandate? Might as well be blank space, since the tax implies it on its own.
“He just had the balls to acknowledge what it defines itself as in it’s own law - a tax.”
Exactly the opposite of balls, actually. He would’ve shot it down along with the conservatives and Kennedy had he not a burning desire to defer to Congress and were he not worried about the court’s reputation in liberal law schools and the MSM. So he went fishing for a way to get around the obviously illegal mandate and hit upon calling the penalty a tax and leaving it at that.
“you know when you figure out whether you have to pay it? When you fill out your income tax form.”
You shouldn’t have to wait till then. The lower limit will be publicized and presumably you’d know whether you have insurance coverage or were granted a waiver or whatever.
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.