Roberts Clarifies: Mandate is a Tax...Not a Penalty [For Campaign Purposes]

ATR ^ | 2012-07-26 | Justin Sykes

[philman_36]

When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax.
He didn't "allow" a secondary argument, he heard the second argument which had been presented to the Court to begin with!
Here's a clue for you... I. THE SEVERABILITY OF MOST PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE

II. IF THE COURT REACHES THE QUESTION, IT SHOULD HOLD THAT THE ACT IS SEVERABLE FROM THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION EXCEPT FOR THE GUARANTEED-ISSUE AND COMMUNITY-RATING PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IN 2014

Get it? Two arguments from the Respondents, not from the Court.
If not one, the other.

Sol Gen - "Oh, the Commerce Clause doesn't cover it, Your Honor?"
USSC - "No, it doesn't."
Sol Gen - "Then uphold the individual mandate as it falls under the taxing power of Congress as we presented in our brief."
USSC - "You got it."
Sol Gen - "Thank you, Your Honor."

[NotTallTex]

The way I understand it is that the power of taxation resides in the House, not the Senate. The Senate cannot attach taxation to a bill at the 11th hour that had not been approved by the House, but it appears they did it anyway.

[philman_36]

The way I understand it is that the power of taxation resides in the House, not the Senate.

It did start in the House.

Look into this...
@Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH]

@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590ih.pdf

As you can see from that first link it got hijacked along the way.

[ballplayer]

Still can’t see how people can be singled out for not purchasing something,is there not supposed to be something called equal protection in the law,taxes are supposed to be apportioned to everyone not just certain groups