Posted on 02/21/2012 11:55:07 PM PST by STARWISE
This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!
Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).
The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida -- now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours -- are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.
But will it be the final ruling? That's now less clear.
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn't check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President's men say it's not a tax; in court, they say it is.
If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:
President Obama faces reelection in November 2012. ObamaCare doesn't go into full operation until January 2014. The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won't be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015. The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.
Until now, everyone has been assuming the Court will rule on the law's constitutionality in early July, five full months before the 2012 elections.
And we've all been assuming that, however the Court rules, the ruling will provide voters with a critical piece of information: What does the Supreme Court think about ObamaCare's constitutionality?
Alas, today's development calls that assumption into doubt. The Court might punt!
The expanded time given to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act issue suggests two things:
1) The high Court is taking seriously the idea that the mandate is a tax -- the strongest possible basis for finding ObamaCare constitutional.
2) If the Court decides that the mandate is a tax, it may be forced to postpone a ruling on the mandate's constitutionality until after the tax has actually been collected on a citizen -- three years hence.
Today's development is just another reason why we cannot count on the courts to repeal the government takeover of health care. However the Supreme Court finally decides, we citizens must keep fighting to protect our threatened health care liberties in the halls of Congress -- and at the ballot-box.
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy
P.S. Last week, we filed a formal legal brief in this important litigation.
I really hope the government starts doing what The People want and the Constitution requires. The other option is not pleasant, but is coming much closer.
A tax implies that a citizen is funding a service funded by the government and carried out by the government independently.
The individual mandate demands citizen participation in the mandate through the purchase of a service that the citizen did not choose. If a citizen doesn't participate in the mandate then a fine is levied.
A tax does not imply coerced participation.
This is worse than a tax. This is tyranny.
Just in time to be too late.
Then it appears necessary to make the SCOTUS decision unnecessary by electing a Congress and president that will make it their first priority to revoke Obamacare in its entirety.
So, what happens if say, hypothetically, God willing, somehow Obamacare gets repealed before 2016? Does that make this SC issue moot?
Next question, what country to move to.
_________________________
Yep, and I’m sure glad my money wasn’t wasted when I bought that house elsewhere. I said I would not stay here if and when obongodeathcare took effect and I meant it. If this country is stupid enough to elect that Marxist again, it’s time for me to get out of here.
And there’s a serious chance of him being RE-ELECTED. Why?
__________________
Because a certain part of the population will vote because he has a lighter shade of their own skin color. They don’t care who or what he is.
I think you are right. If 10 or more states don’t participate how can the progarm proceed? It can’t. Millions of peope will just not sign up for insurance because they cannot afford it. If you are not due a refund on your tax return there is not much the IRS can do about it.
And yet they are already spending taxpayer money on it...
This is hysterical babble.
The hearing is going to determine if it is a tax, and regardless, that is just one part of the argument.
The court will not wait to rule against the law until 2016. I would bet money on that. They will rule by next summer as they always do.
Talk about a headline guaranteed to make a stomach drop! 2016 far too late to save America.
I thought Obamacare wasn’t a tax.
Gingrich is RIGHT!!! Time to start Impeaching judges!
The Supreme Court is more like a “FOOD Court” because they are a bunch of chickens at OFC!
Ugh, you said it, thouworm... :-(
Thanks for the ping!
I just started the Constitution 101 course that Hillsdale College offers. I am very excited to learn more about and study the intent of the framers.
There is one common thread in my research and in the thinking of those philosophers that the founders had studied and that is “consent of the governed”. This idea is really the crux of everything. Not enough of us realize this. It is our responsibility to make sure we KNOW the people we vote for. KNOW who we are sending to represent us. We cannot afford anymore, to allow people to win election based on the color of their skin, how much money they have or whether they “seem like a nice fellow” or not. This is what got us into this mess in the first place. Americans by in large could care less about politics. Or at least, are content to let others care enough to make the decisions for them.
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. Without it, these @ssholes couldn’t do what they are doing. We put them where they are and we can damn sure take them out. We only need enough of us to know that and do something about it.
Amen! You are dead on! We have to take power back. Simple as that.
IMPEACH THE WHOLE SUPREME COURT FOR NON-FEASANCE! It’s time to take our country back from the pimps of the law industry. It no longer has any appearance of JUSTICE!
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.