The title isn’t quite right. They ruled that Obamacare WAS a tax, not necessarily that it was a permissible one....or did I not get that correct?
The ruling is so incoherent that I can’t tell what exactly is establishes. I don’t see how it unmoors Congress’s taxation power from the requirement to be necessary and proper, even though it apparently did so in this particular case. How often does it happen that Congress passes a law involving a penalty that is then transformed into a tax by the Supreme Court? I think future laws involving taxes that don’t have this kind of magical birth will be subject to the necessary and proper requirement just like such laws always have.
“The title isn’t quite right. They ruled that Obamacare WAS a tax, not necessarily that it was a permissible one....or did I not get that correct?”
Seems they ruled that as a mandate it’s unenforceable, but enforceable as a tax penalty which is a clear contradiction. That would still make it a mandate. Basically they ruled that purchasing health insurance can’t be mandated, but at the same time a tax can be imposed for not purchasing it, in other words we can’t force you to buy it, but we’ll tax you and force you to buy it. So the question is what kind of a tax is it since that doesn’t seem defined in the legislation, other than a tax on a person for non-compliance? Does it meet the criteria of a constitutionally legislated tax? I did read on some other threads that it may no be a permissible tax and that it improperly originated in the Senate and not the House.