Skip to comments.DOJ Defends Health Reform as Tax Obama Denied
Posted on 07/18/2010 9:48:40 AM PDT by gusopol3
The Justice Department is defending penalties in the new health care reform legislation for those who fail to buy or acquire insurance as taxes even though President Barack Obama has adamantly denied they're anything of the sort
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
His lips move = liez, period.
When the government and employees are subject to the same healthcare as that of the peasants, someone might take it seriously.
It’s only a constitutional tax if it is applied uniformly right?
Also, how will it actually being a tax affect its cost?... if business pays it, will it be deductible for them?
How do we simply “not comply” with this? Do we have to go off the grid entirely? It’s possible if we have to.
interesting take, as Holder is throwing Obama under the bus; no, wait Obama was supposed to be throwing Holder under the bus on Gitmo; the bus is in for a bumpy ride.
The Marxists began to pivot into this “tax” argument very shortly after it passed becasue they know that the argument that the Commerce Clause power to “regulate” commerce has never extended so far as to “compel” commerce by requiring the consumer to purchase a private product (health insurance) from private companies. If it is a tax that is uniform (proportionate,by the terms of Article I, Section 9) then it would be constitutional.
The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation (or direct) taxes under Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this strict constitutional standard.
The Individual Mandate sanction (which is the very heart of ObamaCare) is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder imposing a penalty on a class of citizens who do not engage in commercial transactions of the government’s choosing. So the tax argument, like the Commerce Clause argument, is doomed to failure.
For the first time in nearly a Century, the Third Branch, the Judiciary, is poised to save the Republic from this nightmare.
Since High Chin, pelosi and reid originally claimed it was NOT a tax in order to get the bill passed, the court should hold them to that position.Wouldn’t it be nice if one day in America, when politicians lie to pass a bill, they have to be held accountable for their lies.
We can only hope.
I believe the IRS is slated to collect.
If the IRS is involved , it’s a tax.
“If the IRS is involved , its a tax.”
If it a tax, it is unconstitutional. It is notbased on income so the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit it. adn it is not a capitation tax permissible under Art. 1, Section 9 since it is NOT UNIFORM AND APPLICABLE TO EVERY CITIZEN. It applies applies only to a subset of individual, that is: those who choose not to get health insurance. And even within that subset, theer are religious exemptions.
It is a penalty and it will stand or fall based upon whether the Courts conclude that it is within Art. 1, Section 8 power to regulate commerce. FYI, the Commerce Clause has never ever been extended to REQUIRE commerce. I don’t think any court would go this far.
Obama Care would have been constitutional (stil bad, but Constitutional) if they had included a public option and dropped the mandate. The Government could have made the public option so attractive and cheap that people would opt for it and the private insurers would be driven out of business. Once they were out of the business, the public option could be constricted and single payer would be the only option.
Trying to do it in the contest of private insurance is just a bridge too far, given the restrictions on Capitation taxes and the traditional limits on the commerce clause.
ObamaCare is unconstitutional. And it is not close.
Don't bet on it.