The decision is predicated upon a notion that the authority to tax may be based on nothing more than Congress' Constitutional authority to tax under the first article of the Constitution. However, the authority itself derives from a requirement that Congress may only raise taxes to achieve what is "necessary and proper" in the pursuit of its specifically enumerated powers. This is made clear in Article I, which adds a further requirement: that the enumerated powers are further restricted to only those things which promote the "general welfare."
Example: Congress is granted the specific authority to create post offices. Therefore, it may raise taxes to obtain that effect (necessary and proper) but it may not create a post office just for the benefit of Fred Zarguna (because it would be solely for my benefit and a few of my friends, and would not promote the general welfare of the United States.)
Therefore, it was incumbent upon proponents of this law to place their finger upon some part of the Constitution wherein an authority to regulate health insurance companies was granted. Grasping at a legal straw, the liberals reverted to an old favorite: the Commerce Clause. But the Court ridiculed that notion, and Roberts himself made it clear that the authority for the mandate could not come from that source.
But now, we have a larger problem than we had before, because Roberts -- writing on behalf of his liberal majority -- has claimed that the authority to tax for any purpose whatsoever is contained in the Constitution, a laughable position that even the most rabid liberal has never (until now) advanced as a legal theory. The argument is either circular (you have the authority to tax because taxation itself is necessary and proper) or advances a claim concerning implied powers under general welfare which has never before been proposed.
In effect, all restrictions on the legislative power have been swept away by this decision. Any law is now Constitutional provided only that a fine, penalty or tax is imposed.
Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...
Because hitherto, the Court would not even have granted Cert in a tax case until someone with standing came forward to challenge the law. In fact, the Court could not do so even if it wanted to, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, and no one will actually be "taxed" by the mandate until 2014. In the instant case, the Court has used thoroughly tortured logic to claim that: 1) Even though the mandate is a tax 2) the AIA doesn't apply, because Congress did not believe it was a tax when it was passed.
Howzzat again?
That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.
But wait, it gets even worse...
Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.
This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)
Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.
It's really that bad.
I think Robert’s message boils down to this: Elect the right people
Excellent post #191 !!!
As I stated before, many can’t see past this election. This precedent will be a tool for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial for generations (unless there is a substantiative revolt).
So Romney is elected, they repeal Obamacare, all your dreams come true...don’t worry the Center for American Progress, the Apollo Alliance, and etc. have more bills waiting in the wings for the proverbial day that the communists are back in power.
May John Roberts live a half-life, a cursed life.
Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...
That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.
But wait, it gets even worse... Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.
This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)
Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.
It's really that bad.
As Bugs Bunny once said to Yosemite Sam: "Of course you know, this means War."
And it does.
Bingo. This is a disaster beyond words.
What a lot of people are overlooking here is that this particular Supreme Court decision involved only the legal challenge that was brought by the plaintiffs in this case (the 28 states who challenged ObamaCare, I believe). The reality is that a whole host of other legal challenges to ObamaCare are looming in the future or still in play right now. The biggest one is the legal challenge brought by religious groups who are arguing against ObamaCare on First Amendment grounds (this was not part of the case that was just decided). Additional legal challenges will be brought as more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented. These challenges can't be brought yet because a plaintiff has to demonstrate that they've been directly affected by an unconstitutional law, and they can't make that case until these provisions are implemented.
My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn much (if not all) of ObamaCare in one of these future cases on very different grounds than what was argued in the case that led to today's decision. I also predict that Roberts will be the one writing the majority decision.
I think the dissenters in today's decision all made the right points -- but they are going to be more relevant in other cases brought by different plaintiffs and argued on different grounds.
The big news today is that Kennedy wants to overturn ObamaCare in its entirety as unconstitutional. He'd have a hard time reversing himself and walking back on that one in a future case.