How so. I’m really hoping this ruling stands, but I don’t understand how it can.
It appears he’s using the severability clause—meaning if one part is found illegal it’s all illegal. But that is for the original law. After the law was passed and Roberts said it’s legal because it’s a tax. A different congress passes a new law saying no taxes...and that invalidated the entire thing? I don’t get it.
Roberts will probably argue there is still a tax but it’s $0. So teh tax is still there.
I found my answer:
“The Individual Mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause — meaning the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional,” O’Connor wrote. “The Individual Mandate is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA.”
An astute observation, mon freep.
I've maintained all along that the individual mandate needed to be completely excised from Obamacare. Merely reducing the penalty for non compliance to $0 did not do that, so the underlying fact that it's a tax, still remains - levied or not.
“Roberts will probably argue there is still a tax but it’s $0. So teh tax is still there.”
Actually, for something to exist, its value cannot equal zero. Thus, there is no tax associated with Obamacare.