Greta says DOJ will fight it by calling it a tax...
Legislators didn’t want to call it a tax for political reasons...
But DOJ lawyers call it a tax in defending it...
REPEAT: REQUIRING SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING IS NOT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE FED GOV HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THE MANDATE....
If they argue that it is a tax, don't they then have to get around Article I Section 9 Clause 1 "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?"
How do they argue that this federal "tax" is "uniform" when the Nebraska "Cornhusker Kickback," the Florida medicare exemptions, and all the union waivers, make favored constituencies exempt from it?
-PJ
Legislators didn’t want to call it a tax for political reasons...
If I recall correctly, legislators specifically stated it was not a tax when the bill was being debated. If that's the case, can't a lawyer bring this up when arguing the case in court? In other words, if DOJ starts describing the mandatory purchase of health insurance, or the penalty for not purchasing, as a tax, couldn't Cuccinelli just introduce as evidence the adamant statements of legislators that it "wasn't a tax" and destroy the DOJ's argument? After all, the legislatures' intent must be understood when considering a bill in court, right?
Been saying since a few days after March 21 this year that the Commerce Clause would be a win for conservatives but that 16th Amendment power to tax would defeat conservatives just as it was used to defeat attempts to abolish Social Security in 1935.
I am not ready to do a victory lap. In fact, I think conservatives need to stay focused on how the 1913 16th Amendment opened the door to socialism, allowing Social Security, then Medicare and now a mandate to pay for health insurance.
Winning a court case based on the Commerce Clause is not sufficient.
Here’s what has to be done when we learn the appeal upholds Obamacare under the power to tax 16th Amendment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html