Posted on 06/29/2012 4:39:31 AM PDT by SJackson
This argument is a complete fail. The commerce clause doesn't matter anymore - the left doesn't need it to establish jurisdiction. After this ruling congress can pass any law it wants, add a "tax" for non-compliance and then rely on Federal taxing authority for jurisdiction. This ruling has removed all restaint on the Federal exercise of power and control. Limiting principal my a**.
bump
Exactly. This decision took a shotgun away from the federal government and gave them a rocket launcher instead.
But as with any “tax”, it can be repealed with 51 Senators in the budget Reconciliation process. No filibuster possible.
Elect a Republican House, President, and Senate (even a tied one), and repeal is possible.
While I would have preferred it be struck down, Roberts just energized the Right and made it much less difficult for repeal.
It’s internally inconsistent.
If they can’t COMPEL you to buy something, how can they rationally PENALIZE you for not buying it?
Makes zero difference if it’s called a tax or a fine or a co-pay, it’s still a penalty that treats some people (those who don’t buy insurance) different from those who do.
So there are due process and equal protection problems also.
Anyone who believes that a liberal supreme court, or any liberal court for that matter, will give any attention to Robert’s limits on the Commerce Clause is a fool.
Their side sticks together on the big issues and shreds, shreds, shreds any conservative precedent.
We HAD a Republican House, Senate and PResident. Show me all the taxes they repealed. . Why should we think it would be any different next time?
Commerce clause? Hell, the whole Constitution doesn't matter to the Government any more. The very compact by which they were granted power by We the People has been broken. No branch is enforcing it, all branches seem to be in a race to see who can defecate hardest and highest on original intent and the letter of the Supreme Law of the Land.
This government run amok is rendering itself illegitimate.
Unless they’ve forgot 2010, I don’t think you have to worry about the Republicans repealing (at least parts of) it.
However, to win they’ve got to say more than just “repeal”. Many people won’t accept nothing in exchange.
They’ve got to sell Conservative principles and the solution to the Healthcare problem.
That’s not to say they have to promise pennies from heaven; although many would expect that.
They have to prove WHY it’s the best for the country and the people. They have to become teachers. And if all they’re going to do is spout talking points, then it’s going to get them nowhere.
Looks like Justice Roberts has helped the Supreme Court become a part of the legislative branch.
When a bunch of over-reaching, adolescent, psychotic Progressives don’t have the brain power to decide if it’s a tax or a penalty the Supreme Court will re-write it for them and magically make it constituional. (All
two-thousand odd pages pages of something that no-one has read and no-one understands will become the law of the land-absolutely amazing and scary.)
IMHO
The Constitution states clearly that direct taxes shall be apportioned.
An ObamaCare tax falls on the individual as a direct tax. It is NOT apportioned.
It is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I think I should worry a lot. The Pubs won't repeal anything. Show me any taxes the congressional class of 2010 repealed. When push came to shove Boehner folded like a paper bag every time.
If they can’t COMPEL you to buy something, how can they rationally PENALIZE you for not buying it?
Exactly! I pointed this out a couple times on other threads. If the states can't be compelled into Medicaid expansion by threats of withholding funding, then how can citizens be taxed if they don't opt into health insurance? Sure, in the first instance, the feds can't withhold something already promised, but in the second, it implies additional penalties for the option of doing nothing. Neither, IMO, is constitutional.
Am I allowed to count the Bush tax cuts that were kept?
Or do I have to cite new tax cuts like the reduction in SS witholding?
Just correcting their rather inept term paper. As a tax, I thought this issue couldn't be adjucated until someone had standing, but paying the tax, but the Court can ignore that too, since it's based on their ruling. Don't think that was addressed in the opinion though.
“the limitations on the Commerce Clause that Chief Justice Roberts used his opinion to clearly articulate will endure and may serve as a brake on future progressive initiatives that go too far.”
This argument is a complete fail.
I agree. First, Roberts has actually made it EASIER for liberals to propose legislation without having to rely on the false commerce clause to get what they want. Now, all they have to do is call the legislation a tax, and voila, it’s a good one. They can do it in baby steps. You want to make tooth paste available to poor people? Simple, just put a tax on every candy bar sold. You want to provide funding for Head Start? Simple, just create a tuition tax on every private day school, etc. You can’t reason with Democrats. If you put up one barrier, they find a way around it, so you have to put up another. Roberts has put up another, out of whole cloth. His fellow conservative judges must be aghast at this acrobatic logic.
Second, Roberts has ignored the language of the original bill and rewrote that language.
Third, why would it have been controversial for a 5-4 vote one way, but not a 5-4 vote the other way? He is just admitting he was afraid of the liberal elite.
Fair enough. And I will cite his massive spending increases which ended up increasing spending 5 dollars for every 1 dollar in taxes he cut. He also expanded medicare. All with a Pub House, Senate and Presidency.
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.