What legal challenges are left?
1. A central portion of this “law” is a tax, and the PPACA tax law originated in the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 7: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The appropriate remedy is to overturn the entire ObamaCare bill and for Congress, if they choose, to re-pass after originating a new bill in the House.
2. By significantly rewriting the legislation to interpret this law as Constitutional, and doing so in a manner that congressional supporters who actually crafted and voted for the bill are disputing, the Supreme Court violated Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The appropriate remedy is to overturn the entire ObamaCare bill and allow the Congress to do the rewrites that Roberts claimed would make this constitutional.
3. By laying a tax that is not an income tax (the ONLY federal tax not apportioned according to population that is permitted by Amendment 16), one that is not apportioned among the states in proportion to population, Congress has violated Article 1, Section 2: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . .” The appropriate remedy is to find the mandate unconstitutional and overturn the entire ObamaCare bill.
4. The passage that, “(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.” exempts some religions and not others from this tax. Religious exemptions from taxes are a particularly egregious violation of the first clause of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This also violates the Fourteenth Amendment: “. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The appropriate remedy is to exempt all Americans from the tax associated with the individual mandate and thus overturn the entire ObamaCare bill.
5. The “tax” associated with ObamaCare is described in the law and by the legislators who signed it, even after the Court’s rulings, as a penalty or a fine. The amount of this fine is up to $2250 per family per year, an excessive fine for inaction, in violation of the Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The appropriate remedy is to exempt all Americans from the excessive fine associated with the individual mandate and thus overturn the entire ObamaCare bill.
Any comments, criticism, other ideas?
Superb. Especially #1, and someone mentioned this on Fox. Unsurprisingly, it went nowhere. Which leads to another question within your argument: If the bill originated in the Senate (and of course it did), is it even possible to call or rename (or adjudicate) the penalty a “tax”? Secondly, as has been mentioned here, could Obamacare have passed EITHER body as a “tax”? Elections surely have consequences, but Roberts’ ruling mooted those consequences. He had the PERFECT argument for returning the whole monstrosity to Congress. The fact that he didn’t is most troubling of all.
All five are excellent. How do all or even one proceed in a courtroom? As it is, they’ll be great arguments for repeal in the House, after the election.
The election will be decided long before any of these valid points could work their way through the courts only to be swatted away on another distortion. But Roberts just possibly may have been the grandest politician of all. If he changed the decision late, it may have been in response to the developing theme of Obozo to run against the Supreme Court. In the meantime, as has been often pointed out, Romney presents Obama with the dichotomy,”If it’s a mandate, it’s unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, you lied. “ “Taxation with misrepresentation.”
Most impressive — on the face of it, it appears you know what you’re talking about, and if so, then all the conclusions seem to point to one direction: REPEAL IT!
Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?
The ruling on June 28th probably ranks among the four or five worst decisions by the Supreme Court in its history. I don't see any upside. The only hope is that if Obama is defeated, some of the damage can be reversed...but it will probably be impossible to undo all of the damage.
> “3. By laying a tax that is not an income tax”
OBAMACARE HAS INCOME TAXES (also more see after TITLE IX below):
TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W-2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.
Subtitle B—Other Provisions
Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit.
And the government is going to take taxes out of paychecks and they are going to administer the mandate penalty via IRS form 1040 for individual income taxes.
Don’t anyone tell me this is not related to the 16th Amendment!