Posted on 07/23/2013 9:12:12 AM PDT by 80sReaganite
ObamaCare is at the center of a rapidly escalating fight that threatens to shut the government down this fall.
Republicans have tried this maneuver in Obama’s first term, only to back off later to the chagrin of Tea Party leaders.
This time, GOP lawmakers are emboldened by problems plaguing the administration’s ObamaCare implementation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I’m not completely sure the Democrats wouldn’t welcome this.
yes.
And why save the rats from their own mess?
Promising what you cannot actually deliver on makes people more angry .
Republicans playing checkers again.(dems playing chess)
I detest Obamacare and really wish the SC had nullified it, but in your view on what basis is it unconstitutional?
First off, it's Constitutional because a majority of the SC says it is so. That doesn't mean we need to like it. The views of the people on this site are irrelevant to the discussion.
Secondly, the majority opinion very clearly says that the commerce clause in the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force us to buy anything. That was actually a pretty significant victory for us and will be cited as precedent by our allies in future cases in which the federal government overreaches. What Roberts agreed with was that even though the government doesn't have the power to force us to buy something it does have the power under the taxing clause to tax us if we don't. Failing to buy insurance does not trigger any criminal sanctions, only the imposition of a fine, a tax in Robert's view.
The tax code is filled to the brim with tax incentives to encourage certain behavior. For example, Congress has decided it's a good idea to encourage folks to buy houses since it helps the economy, so the code provides us a deduction for mortgage interest paid on a home mortgage - thus, an incentive to engage in the desired behavior. Roberts was saying this is the exact flip side of that. The law as enacted wants to incentivize the purchase of health insurance so it taxes us for failure to do so. How is giving a tax benefit for something the government wants us to do any different that imposing a tax detriment for something the government doesn't want us to do, in this case not buying insurance?
I hate Obamacare and want it gone, but I cannot argue with Roberts' logic. (I'm a lawyer with a specialty in tax.) Even he said that he doesn't necessarily agree that Obamacare is a good idea from a policy perspective, but that it's a legislative not a Constitutional issue. So now it's time for the House to get some cojones and get rid of this atrocity by whatever means it can.
If you, with your legal background, can find any portion of the Constitution that says it’s all right for the government to force a private citizen to purchase anything under penalty of law, I’ll believe DeathCare is Constitutional.
Frankly I don’t care about Justice Roberts’ opinion. I think if you look around here, you’ll find the hoi polloi agrees with me.
Apparently, you didn’t read my post. Makes no difference. Fregards!
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.