Posted on 06/28/2012 6:13:19 PM PDT by Aquamarine
The U.S. Supreme Court today voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, refusing to overturn the unpopular law and sending the issue back to voters to decide in the upcoming presidential election.
The 5-4 decision found the individual mandate at the heart of the law was a tax and therefore allowable under Congress’ constitutional power to levy taxes. Roberts joined the conservative wing in finding the law otherwise would have violated the Commerce Clause, however, by exceeding the power of Congress.
The decision is a victory for liberals who for decades had been pushing for a federal law to provide health insurance to every citizen. It’s also likely to be a boon for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who can now campaign even more vigorously on a platform of repealing the unpopular law –modeled, ironically enough, on one he signed as Massachusetts governor — and replace it with less intrusive measures. (Here’s my early take on the decision itself: “Roberts Upholds Obamacare, And the Court’s Authority, Too“)
The Supreme Court’s decision today leaves in place a highly complex law, many of whose most expensive provisions kick in in 2014. Here’s what to expect:
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Thanks. I know about polls taxes. I had been asking for an example of an existing tax that is anything like this individual mandate tax. Nobody — including Justice Roberts , btw— has been able to do so as of yet.
Would you call it a tax on existence? I see it that way. And it’s a “poll tax,” but not the kind associated with voting as the term has been applied in the US. In Europe, a “poll tax” is literally a head tax...a tax on existence.
I think it’s a bad idea, and it was so unpopular in the UK (It was called a Community Charge) it got Thatcher bounced out of office. It was repealed almost instantly when Majors took office. If BammyCare is understood as a tax here, it will be rightly seen as highly regressive. The poor will shoulder most of the burden. The Dems will be the ones fighting for repeal if this plays out well.
This is such retarded thinking by Roberts...he correctly points our the Commerce Clause is crap but opens up the Pandora Box of TAX! HUH?
So IF the Commerce Clause is now void (some scraps for stupid so-called conservatives like George Will, NRO, et al) because of mandates, how is a tax structure able to take even more of our rights away?
I don’t like broccoli, are they going to tax me? Even the Commerce Clause can’t force me to do that.
Damn, when did the United States enact a Jizya tax?
Oh, NOW you want it to be limited to US? You didn’t specify that. Sorry, I missed it.
In the US, this is the only one right now. But there were others in the past, and in fact, it’s specifically allowed by the Constitution (A “Capitation tax”), as long as it followed the official decennial census’ apportionment. But my larger point was: This is going to really stick in a lot of craws, and the pressure to repeal will be immense and from unexpected quarters.
Agree! A gift that will keep on giving from now till Nov and beyond!
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.