Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

American Spectator ^ | 6/17/2010 | Phillip Klein

[XenaLee]

If they’re now claiming the “fees” aren’t fees, but “taxes”, doesn’t that delegitimize the whole process?

Yes, it does. But who is going to report on it? Certainly not the lame/mainstream media. Nobody but us will even know.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Court lacks jurisdiction? No remedy? Are they serious with that crap?

If it's a tax (big if), the Anti-Injunction Act says that no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of any tax. There is, however, another remedy, which is to pay the tax, ask for a refund, and then sue in the Court of Federal Claims.

[Lurking Libertarian]

My guess is that a fee based on the existence of an insurance policy would be very hard to characterize as a tax on income.

The 16th Amendment is hardly the only constitutional source of power to tax. There is still Article I, section 8, clause 1.

[wiggen]

All the debating over what happened first,where the bill originated,what standing the court has are of course useful.
More useful is the fact that hes a lying piece of garbage. If hes ever called out on it he will blame Justice for taking that path,for overstepping his intentions.
In the end however we have the lie. Not a little one either. A really big one that all pubbies had best take notice of. We may have an inordinate amount of stupid or easily led people in this country but one thing even they can’t tolerate is a liar. Especially one as bumbling and incompetent as he is.

[Lurking Libertarian]

To finish my thought, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Social Security by finding that it was a tax, and specifically that it was an "excise," not an income tax. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis.

[Taxman]

Whatever Obozo wants, Obozo gets?

I think not!

Is it November, yet?

[Hoodat]

the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax

Taxes are paid to the government - not insurers.

[BradyLS]

It’s whatever it has to be to get through the courts. Then it will morph in something else.

That's what living, breathing laws are all about. So plastic as to be anything the three branches want it to be, any moment they wish.

[Chode]

except that kid is more of a man than Prissy...

[OneWingedShark]

When no-body has standing, then we must TAKE our standing... violently, if need be.

[skr]

Or, “When aren’t you lying?”

[Raycpa]

I don’t disagree. I was responding to a request about the 16th.

[Vendome]

Still have no standing and Barry O. fancies himself a modern day Lincoln. He will find his General Sherman.

So we still have no standing and he will leave no one standing.

[Hostage]

Been saying this since shortly after March 21 of this year.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2511077/posts?page=10#10

[Candor7]

Its not a tax,just because the IRS enforces it.

Then why would they tax a tax? Employees and employees will be taxed on mandated benefits.

Bit of a reach.

[Hostage]

They are following FDR’s playbook in defending Social Security.

Publicly FDR was saying it was simply a modest retirement pension plan.

But in court FDR’s lawyers were arguing it was a tax.

Rush Limbault also chimed in with this history shortly after March 21 this year.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2511077/posts?page=10#10

Here’s the solution:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

[kevao]

Yes, it does. But who is going to report on it? Certainly not the lame/mainstream media. Nobody but us will even know

Well, I thought the lawyers from the States that are suing would pick up on it. But I guess it is moot -- apparently, the Senate bill did originate in the House, but it had nothing to do with health care and was completely stripped and then loaded with the Obamacare crap.

Oh, well. Now our hopes rest on the courts being unwilling to expand the Commerce Clause to the extent that the Legislative Branch becomes essentially all-powerful.

[Hostage]

Uh no.....IF you pay an insurer for a health care policy ‘that meets minimum federal guideline requirements’, THEN you get a tax credit.

IF you can’t show you are insured ‘minimally’, THEN you don’t get the credit AND you pay the penalty. And that word ‘minimally’ can be changed at whim of those controlling the socialist spigot.

16th Amendment trumps all.

Want to know what the solution is?

Here you go:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

[kevao]

Can private insurance companies collect federal taxes?

[Oceander]

Which means that it's unconstitutional because it's an unapportioned capitation, or head, tax; i.e., a so-called "direct tax."

This is a heads we-win/tails-they-lose situation - it's not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power, and it's not a valid tax because it's an unapportioned direct tax.