Replies

So if the answer to the question as to whether congress can compell citizens to buy healthcare is “no” according to Robert’s own reading of the commerce clause, then on what basis does the tax from an unconstitutional mandate follow???

If the cause is unconstitutional, how is the consequence then constitutional?

Outstanding, my friend! That is the most well-reasoned argument I've seen against Roberts' ruling today. Please consider posting it as a separate thread. It's too good not to share with the whole forum.

You've just punched a hole in this thing big enough to send it crashing to the ground.

Terrific argument!!

This is an absolutely ridiculous ruling and no one should obey this law. No one! Let’s see them try to put more than half of the people in this country in prison!

I do believe you have just read the future of this thing. The Constitution didn't fail today, and evil did not win. A blatantly unjust law cannot be enforced, except by direct point of a gun. They do not have the will (or enough guns) to do that, so the ruling will go unenforced. The people will not abide by it, so help me.

Roberts didn't hurt the people or the Constitution today. He effectively just de-legitimized the high court.

Roberts didn't say the mandate was unconstitutional. The government made two arguments to justify the mandate. Only the first one dealt with the Commerce Clause. The government's second point was even if the Commerce Clause didn't apply, the mandate was effectively an income tax. Roberts shot down their first argument but agreed with the second.

Personally, I wouldn't have went through all the legal wranglings Robert did to try and determine constitutionality. I would have taken Congress at its word. In other words, they said the mandate was a penalty and treated it as such. However, I see Roberts’ point that previous SCOTUS rulings have defined certain elements that are required for something to be, in fact, a penalty, and that criteria doesn't fit the mandate.

Can Congress encourage certain behaviors by giving income tax breaks? Apparently it can. It certainly does. Could it do the opposite, assign a higher tax rate to someone for not doing something it wants? I'm trying to think of an instance like that, but I'm drawing a blank. Nevertheless, there's a very small distinction in my opinion between giving out tax breaks based on behavior and assigning tax increases for same.

That blasted 16th Amendment was written so poorly it pretty much allows the federal government to do whatever it wants with our incomes. I think we need some constitutional amendments to reign in the madness.