Skip to comments.
Ken Cuccinelli, on second thought, likes Supreme Court health-care decision
The Washington Post ^
| 02:44 PM ET, 06/28/2012
| Laura Vozzella
Posted on 06/28/2012 1:56:33 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: Hunton Peck
Why sure he likes it. The whole place is rotting with traitors.
2
posted on
06/28/2012 1:58:39 PM PDT
by
WKUHilltopper
(And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
To: Hunton Peck
I’m confused: in what way is a tax - backed up by armed IRS agents - not a “mandate”?
3
posted on
06/28/2012 2:05:02 PM PDT
by
dagogo redux
(A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
To: WKUHilltopper
The whole place is rotting with traitors.What whole place?
4
posted on
06/28/2012 2:06:40 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
To: dagogo redux
The court never said mandates were unconstitutional, they just said it could not be required under the commerce clause.
5
posted on
06/28/2012 2:08:38 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: All
I wonder who it was who called him and told him to change his tune.
6
posted on
06/28/2012 2:10:04 PM PDT
by
Terry Mross
( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
To: Hunton Peck
which he found upheld individual liberty and curbed federal power even as it left the law in place.I am more concerned about the ends than the means. If Congress can use the tax system to compel someone to buy something, isn't that a loss of liberty?
7
posted on
06/28/2012 2:12:32 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: Hunton Peck
The court also ruled that the government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that opt against a big expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Well, we've now learned that the federal government can punish states in other ways. Witness Arizona.
Imagine down the road Colorado has announced it will opt against Medicaid eligibility expansion. Obama: "Wild fires? Sorry, can't afford to do anything about em - burn baby burn!" Or Louisiana gets hit by another hurricane. Obama: "Sorry! Y'all have got too many Republicans down there. You're on your own!"
8
posted on
06/28/2012 2:20:31 PM PDT
by
COBOL2Java
(FUMR)
To: xsmommy
9
posted on
06/28/2012 2:20:43 PM PDT
by
secret garden
(Why procrastinate when you can perendinate?)
To: COBOL2Java
Bingo.
See Texas last years fires. No disaster declaration until it became obvious he drug his feet for political punishment. I saw it first hand.
10
posted on
06/28/2012 2:25:13 PM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(You've been screwed by your government.)
To: Hunton Peck
Huh? If the taxing authority can be used to make you buy or do anything, is this really a difference?
11
posted on
06/28/2012 2:26:31 PM PDT
by
Truth29
To: COBOL2Java
Didn’t he already do that by refusing to declare TX a disaster area with the droughts last year?
Obama is nothing but a political low-life punk and foreign enemy combatant occupying our White House.
To: Hunton Peck
The court ruled that Americans could be required to secure health insurance, but under Congresss taxing authority, not under the Constitutions commerce clause. That means the individual mandate has been deemed a tax But, given it's a tax, is it a constitutional tax?
It's not a federal income tax, which would be legal under the 16th Amendment. It's also not a federal excise tax, since it's based merely on existing, not on using something or carrying on some activity. Nor, obviously, is it a tariff.
So, it must be a head tax or capitation, which, according to Article I, must be laid "in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Any lawyers care to elucidate that?
13
posted on
06/28/2012 2:26:56 PM PDT
by
cynwoody
To: Hunton Peck
This subtlety is just lost on me. If the government is making me do something that I don’t think it should be allowed to under penalty of some fine, how exactly is it different whether the fee is called a fine, a tax, a dog’s butt, or whatever? I’m freer if I’m being compelled by a penalty with the proper name?
14
posted on
06/28/2012 2:27:26 PM PDT
by
throwback
(The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
To: Sequoyah101
I didn’t see your post. That’s exactly what I was thinking about too. The drought, but the fires too.
To: Hunton Peck
An activist judge will decide what outcome he or she wants and then supply the rationale. It looks like Roberts might now be in that category along with the four leftists on the court. Anyone who thinks such activist judges will be restrained by some new interpretation of the commerce clause, or taxing authority or anything else is living in a fantasy world.
Activist, liberal justices will arrive at the conclusion they desire.
The only positive to be found today is that the ruling should reignite the Tea Party fire, then bring many more to it to significantly increase the odds of defeating Obama, holding the House and taking the Senate.
16
posted on
06/28/2012 2:39:47 PM PDT
by
Will88
To: Hunton Peck
On the bright side, since SCOTUS ruled the “mandate” is a tax, not “commerce”, a Republican majority Senate will be able to get rid of it through “budget reconciliation” with 51 votes and the Rats will not be able to filibuster.
17
posted on
06/28/2012 2:47:12 PM PDT
by
HenpeckedCon
(What pi$$es me off the most is that POS commie will get a State Funeral!)
To: butterdezillion
Yes, you are most certainly correct on that statement.
18
posted on
06/28/2012 2:52:20 PM PDT
by
rockinqsranch
(Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
To: cynwoody
So, it must be a head tax or capitation, which, according to Article I, must be laid "in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Any lawyers care to elucidate that?
Not a lawyer, but Respected Comrade Supreme Roberts addressed this in his opinion:
Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. A 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. 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 payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States. The Affordable Care Acts requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. (pages 39-44)
19
posted on
06/28/2012 3:03:58 PM PDT
by
xeno
To: dagogo redux
Exactly
It is in fact a mandate which is enforced through a tax imposed for non-compliance. This would appear to open the door to all types of mandates backed by an unlimited ability to tax.
Cuccinelli claims individual liberty was preserved with this ruling. It’s still coercion which negates individual liberty no matter how it’s spun or what it’s called.
His rethink makes no sense.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson