Skip to comments.In Health Care Ruling, Roberts Steals a Move From John Marshall's Playbook [Comments Please!]
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:23:55 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
There are eerie parallels between today's decision and a legendary case from Thomas Jefferson's time.
Earlier today, the Supreme Court, by a narrowly divided vote, upheld the individual mandate, a key component of President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Obama supporters are letting out a collective sigh of relief, as most observers expected the mandate -- and possibly the entire Act -- to fall after the oral argument. Conservatives are conversely upset that Chief Justice Roberts -- the deciding vote in the case -- snatched defeat for conservatives from the jaws of victory, given that there were four votes to strike down the Act in its entirety.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.theatlantic.com ...
Didn’t realize you jumped in on what I wrote to someone else. He was flat out wrong in the specific thing he wrote to me. You stuck your nose where it don’t belong. He was wrong in that specific point and I was not wrong to tell him so and your citing the dissent is
IRRELEVANT to the point at issue.
Don’t post if you don’t want others to comment on them.
The poster you replied to wrote:
“Roberts just invented the most pernicious new precedent for vastly expanded Federal power since the New Deal. Congress can now call any regulatory penalty under any circumstance a tax and it will now be upheld under Congress unlimited taxing authority.”
The poster was 100 percent correct, never claimed Roberts invented a new taxing power, and you are still flat wrong.
If you read the dissents you will see the difference between a penalty and a tax explained in relation to this ruling.
Is Congress' power to tax really unlimited? For example, if Congress passed a $10,000 per-gun, per-year tax on firearm ownership (effectively making gun ownership impossible for a majority of the citizenry) would that be a legitimate tax function of the Congress, a violation of the Second Amendment, or both?
The line of argument in the article is interesting. I hope it is true.
Roberts today destroyed the Constitution. It's the worst decision of my lifetime. Worse than Roe. It might be the most evil decision since Dred Scott. And that lead to the civil war. And that's where we're headed.
Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Their job and their oath of office is to do just that, uphold and defend the Constitution.
I just wonder who managed to get the mushrooms into his food chain during the last week or so.
Roberts did not invent any expansion of taxing authority. The virtually unlimited taxing authority of Congress has existed since Hamilton won the debate.
The limits on taxing rest with the People, not the Constitution.
I addressed a SPECIFIC point.
Of course in many cases what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually exclusive.
In a few cases, this Court has held that a tax imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held never that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax.
Check out that damning “never” in the second paragraph. Alito, Scalia and Kennedy agree with me - or rather I agree with them. You're welcome to disagree. But that puts you with Roberts and rest of the liberals. In the old Constitution, Congress had the power to tax just about anything, but only if it called it a tax. As of yesterday, we have a new Constitution: one that allows Congress to concoct any sort of regulatory framework they desire so long as some sort of monetary penalty is associated with it, because that penalty is now a tax and thus permissible under Congress’ power to tax. Some conservatives think that they won some sort of victory because the decision places limits on permissible acts under the Commerce Clause. I say who cares? Roberts’ decision has rendered the Commerce Clause a dead letter.