George Will is missing an important piece of logic in his analysis of Roberts decision.

vanity ^ | self

[commish]

One thing to be aware of here - This ruling just says that the Mandate is constitutional because it is a tax and Congress has the right to tax.

But, it did not rule whether this tax is in and of itself a constitutional tax. That cannot be determined until the tax is levied and someone then has standing to bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of the tax.

I know that is splitting hairs, putting lipstick on a pig, whatever you want to call it — but the bottom line is the legal challenges to Obamacare are not over and this tax can now be challenged as an unconstitutional tax.

[gleeaikin]

Regarding the tax implications of renting. If you don’t buy a home you do not get to deduct the mortgage interest you pay. Regarding health insurance, that is the point. The government doesn’t know and we pay for the medical care of those who don’t have insurance when they free-load our emergency rooms.

[Wayne07]

Mark Steyn destroys George Will in his article today:

"I have great respect for George Will, but his assertion that the Supreme Court decision is a "huge victory" that will "help revive a venerable tradition" of "viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint" and lead to a "sharpening" of "many Americans' constitutional consciousness" is sufficiently delusional that one trusts mental health is not grounds for priority check-in at the death panel."

full article here: Mark Steyn: A lie makes Obamacare legal

[The_Media_never_lie]

They are not taxing inactivity, the people are breathing. If it breathes, tax it. This is the breath tax.

[Pontiac]

I predict free "sex change" surgery will be at the top of the priority list.

Well being male or female is a preexisting condition so naturally you can now get insurance and have that condition fixed.

[henkster]

I agree with your analysis, but would make one other point. The “rights” we now have against our Leviathan are pretty much procedural, and not substantive. The government can do anything it wants, so long as it pays heed to certain legal formalities on the way there. As a practical matter, it reduces our Constitution to mere window dressing.

[Lurking Libertarian]

BAM! Exactly. Except most people have never heard of a head tax, and have no idea they’re illegal.

Technically, they're legal, but only if apportioned.

Roberts probably doesn’t even know the difference between unconstitutional direct taxes and ever other kind of tax. That’s because he and other judges live in the world of precedent and the post-New Deal Constitution, and have never bothered to read for its own sake the actual Constitution.

Roberts' opinion does discuss all of the case law (there isn't much of it) about what is a "direct tax," including Hylton v. United States (1796), and concludes that this isn't a "direct" tax.

[Lurking Libertarian]

One thing to be aware of here - This ruling just says that the Mandate is constitutional because it is a tax and Congress has the right to tax. But, it did not rule whether this tax is in and of itself a constitutional tax. That cannot be determined until the tax is levied and someone then has standing to bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of the tax. I know that is splitting hairs, putting lipstick on a pig, whatever you want to call it — but the bottom line is the legal challenges to Obamacare are not over and this tax can now be challenged as an unconstitutional tax.

Sadly, no.

The Court's opinion held that this wasn't a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, so that challenges to it were now ripe, and then held that it was a "tax" for purposes of the Constitution, and found it a valid tax (explicitly rejecting the argument that it was an unapportioned direct tax).

[Tublecane]

“What is wrong with the legacy of Bush vs. Gore”

It put Bush the Younger in office, therefore libs don’t like it, therefore they pretend there was something legally wrong with it.

[Tublecane]

“Technically, they’re legal, but only if apportioned.”

Among the states, yes. But they won’t be, so they’re illegal.

“Roberts’ opinion does discuss all of the case law (there isn’t much of it) about what is a ‘direct tax,’ including Hylton v. United States (1796), and concludes that this isn’t a ‘direct’ tax.”

I was being glib, of course. I don’t mean to denigrate Roberts’ legal knowledge. It’s just that he and everyone else in the profession go by post-New Deal precedent instead of real law. So that if he has heard the term poll tax and does from time to time inquire as to whether something is one, that doen’t mean he doesn’t ignore what is and isn’t a poll tax in the interest of what expands federal power at the expense of everything but what lawyers have arbitrarily decided are worthy causes.

It is a head tax. Actually, it’s not a tax at all; Roberts merely unilaterally interpreted it that way. But if it is a tax it’s a head tax, and I don’t care what Roberts says.

[Tublecane]

“Roberts’ opinion does discuss all of the case law (there isn’t much of it) about what is a ‘direct tax,’ including Hylton v. United States (1796)”

I don’t see how that’d be very enlightening, as it was about taxes on carriages and ruled to be an excise tax. The mandadte penalty couldn’t possibly be an excise tax. Perhaps a better case would be the one in the 1890s case, I forget what it’s called, striking down the income tax, which necessitated the 16th amendment. But that was from the bad old Lochner days, and the judging industry—liberal and conservative—routinely regards those decisions as evil.

[Jim Noble]

Is it an excise, duty or impost? Is it a tax on income? Is it an apportioned direct tax?

It is none of these, and Congress has no power to levy it.