Skip to comments.Ken Cuccinelli, on second thought, likes Supreme Court health-care decision
Posted on 06/28/2012 1:56:33 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
click here to read article
But, given it’s a tax, is it a constitutional tax?
Then, I concur with your analysis that it is not covered by any current taxing authority in the Constitution, and that the constitutionality of the tax should be attacked.
The ruling is an unmitigated disaster. Too many Conservatives are trying desperately to polish a turd. This isn't a victory. It can't be spun into one.
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)
I have made that point all day long. But then I read this quote from the opinion:
"....it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes."
Doesn't this mean that the constitutionality of the tax has been decided?
It's about time we all recognized this fundamental breakdown in the social compact, and made it clear to every agent of government in Washington. They need to be officially unrecognized by the people, and fired en masse.
It's time to simply pull the plug and start over. Heck, pull out the phone book and appoint new leadership from the first 545 names listed. Nearly anything would be better than this.
I'm not kidding. It's time for a civil rebellion, the likes of which this country has never seen.
But there's a reason that during that entire time frame, Congress has never passed a law taxing inactivity - and why the 2010 Congress took great efforts in disguising its ploy.
Sure, in theory, Congress can tax you for not eating broccoli, not buying a Volt, etc. But, how does it actually gain the necessary votes to pass?
Think about the waivers & exceptions granted by the DHS that were crafted under the assumption of using the commerce clause for cover, which has -0- oversight and 100% discretion of the executive.
Now, the mandate is a poll tax. Exceptions, waivers, thresholds, etc have to be initiated in the House, passed & signed as law, and executed by the IRS.
If the executive were to have leeway on taxes, then any tax, whether it be income, property, etc, would all be subject to executive discretion.
Roberts dropped a bomb.
According to Roberts, it is a tax but really not a tax according to Constitution and tax law. Roberts has exempted it from the normal rules applying to taxes.
The statists, Dems and Reps, will find the votes they need when they deem it necessary. We have set a horrible legal precedent that will exist even if Obamacare is repealed. There is no silver lining in this decision. It is an absolute disaster for individual liberty and the Constitution.
The Anti-Injunction law prohibits any Court from addressiing that issue until some part of that Tax is actually collected.
Exactly. This isn't the last time Obamacare will be in the courts.
“ANYONE that supports this decision by roberts is STARK RAVING MAD”
Mark Levin 6/28/2012
We’ve always been on our own. Many states never see Federal funds after a disaster. Besides, it basically just means loans for most people. Only the protected classes get actual grants of some sort.
People need to stop using the progressive template “Bush didn’t help New Orleans”. Actually, he did and if New Orleans had been majority white, no one would have said a word or cared. Perhaps the liberals would have complained about the waste of Federal tax funds on white people.
People need to be prepared for disaster on their own. Prepared to help the elderly and disabled. Prepared to rebuild with each others’ help.
Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. If States declined Federal intervention in the first place, they wouldn’t be dependent upon it in the second place.
Borders are a different issue, unfortunately, because it is a Federal obligation and this administration is declining the obligation to protect the border. The solution is to replace the administration with one that actually does its job.
WE are the answer and we can do it electorally.
Everyone also has to realize that the progressives are really enjoying our angst. We could stop the hand wringing and drama and deprive them of that.
Point well taken.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. A rose by any other name.... Seems like a game of semantics to me. Whatever they choose to call it, it doesn’t change the fact that Americans are being compelled by the government to act in a certain way or face a penalty/tax/fine/whatever.
Like many things on WAPO, this is a complete distortion of what our AG Cuccinelli said.
For his ACTUAL words, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900924/posts
Thanks for posting that. It reads like the statement at your link was released after the news conference “reported” in this article.
But yes, the notion that Cuccinelli “did a 180” on the ruling was clearly a spin occurring only in the heads of the WaPo journolistas.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
**the ruling, which he found upheld individual liberty and curbed federal power even as it left the law in place.**
BTTT — the truth is starting to come out. I saw it right away.
If Roberts wanted to uphold individual liberty and curb Federal power he would of ruled with Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito who actually did.
What Roberts did was activism in the form of switching the penalty found unconstitutional (With Breyer and Kagan agreeing) under the commerce clause with a simple head/negative tax. I don't get why people are ignorant about the precedent Roberts set. For goodness sake, he was joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Breyer, and Kagan in this respect.
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.