Posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:12 AM PDT by ShadowAce
OK, this was this first thing that sprung to mind last week when SCOTUS announced its decision. Since then, I've been surprised by both the Administration's response and the media. No one has brought this up:
Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?
Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?
Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?
..no one in Government can make a decision, ONLY the libtard media can
Well, one way of looking at is that they are moving the Overton window so as they do other openly unconstitutional things, no one will be surprised.
It is all spin to take your attention away from the economy, period!
Smoke and mirrors.
it all depends on what the definition of is is.
I agree completely. Romney’s safe approach so far won’t allow him to point such things out. I sure hope his troupe change their tune into a more, Levin-style attack and campaign. Stark differences and loud pitches in one’s voice - err, a little emotion would be nice.
That's the easiest way of getting rid of this thing.
The others are there on behalf of Obama’s campaign throwing smoke screen, since a tax obviously will hurt Obama’s chance.
Another thing is they obviously also ‘hope’ the longer we talk about Roberts, the less we will pay attention to his other performance (UN gun control, Sea Treaty, miserable handling of ME, etc) let alone consistently bad economy.
How does Congress nullify it without a vote?
Sure, just ‘nullify’! Er, what’s nullify? Has it been used in the last twenty years? Is ‘nullify’ the good twin of ‘deem it passed’?
Whatever the process is.
If the intent of the law was not a tax...and the court said it is only valid as a tax...then the law is unconstitutional under any other interpretation. As Carney called it a "tax fallacy," then the law cannot stand according to the Court. Right?
You have one problem with your argument. It might have been ok before the judgement, but today, it is a tax.
There is no valid argument to the contrary
It is a tax and the law of the land........ period
They're not. Call them on it. Declare this thing unconstitutional and then see their reactions.
The whole damn thing is unconstitutional. However, Roberts, Kagan et al said otherwise.
Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?
I'm not sure that everyone is going along, but so what. Roberts & company said it was OK, so it is now established in case law.
Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?
Not sure I get what you're asking.
That’s my interpretation of what happened.
If it is a tax, then shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House of Representatives and not the Senate? Shouldn’t that have rendered it unconstitutional due to process if not content?
Another excellent point.
While seldom done, I agree that Congress can end a tax.
And if it’s a Penalty, Congress again can nullify a penalty.
Just getting it thru the Senate will be the problem. I doubt GOP will win Senate.
Actually, there’s no mechanism for Congress to as you say, nullify it.
Perhaps you mean repeal it.
You said nullify it without a vote? That’s a dog that won’t hunt. Congress has to vote in order to do something about whatever it might be.
Perhaps you are thinking of the state nullification possibility. States, unlike Congress, could nullify this law by refusing to implement it (and by passing laws in their legislatures followed by governors signing them, saying their state citizens do not have to comply with Obamacare).
There is a very good thread on this based on Rush’s sub, Dr. Walter E Williams, advocating this very thing.
Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2903330/posts?page=3
As to what to call it, a tax, and on the basis of the Robert’s opinion act against it in whatever way, there I see that as quite murky.
I’m not certain what force of law the Robert’s opinion has. He certainly failed to overturn Obamacare, because he refused to join with the four justices who voted to overturn.
Where I get lost in the weeds is, how can he simply CALL it a tax in his writings, when it didn’t come before him as tax because it was not passed in Congress as a tax...at least everyone behind it screamed it was not a tax.
And how can he as one man get away with claiming it is upheld as a tax even though there’s a law that says tax cases cannot be brought until people are having to pay the tax.
Also, it was my understanding that the libs did not agree with Roberts to call it a tax. They wanted to hold that it stood under the Commerce Clause, not even to mention that it even might be a tax, much less it is one.
I do know they agreed with him not to overturn the law, but they were writing their own views as to why.
What, do we have rule by a one man dictator, John Roberts?
So, states CAN nullify, and they can do so no matter what Roberts wrote or what it means.
Congress can repeal, by voting, but it must pass the Senate which means Reid must go, and a new president must sign the repeal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.