1. His ruling killed the commerce clause - yeah, the one with -0- oversight and 100% discretion of the executive and/or cabinet chiefs
2. His opinion forced the recognition that all future legislation is based solely on the power to tax.
For those who wanted a supreme leader (gee, the desire runs in both Rs & Ds) to crush the O-Tax by fiat, it's a bitter disappointment.
But for those who understand that taxes are literally a quagmire where political careers go to die, it's a godsend. There's a reason the Bush tax cuts are called the "Bush Tax Cuts" - tax policy is a key electoral factor.
Also, some are beginning to realize that taxes must be evenly applied ie are subject to equal protection. If there are exceptions/exemptions, like the EIC, it must be based on some underlying basis, as in income under the XVI.
Nowhere in the O-Tax are the taxes actually spelled out. Are they a poll tax, property tax, income tax or whatever tax? Can anyone other than Alberta's Child see what's gonna happen in this arena? Litigation dear reader.
In fact, what if anyone with standing sues on the basis that the tax is a poll tax and the court agrees (in the absence of any countervailing evidence). If Congress doesn't go back to reform/revise the definition, the actual tax construction (not power) of O-Tax is unconstitutional on its face. Congress simply has to do nothing, and the thing dies.
I don’t think the opinion killed the Commerce Clause, but it has at least stopped its cancerous growth, I hope. Legislation will still frequently state that it is based on the Commerce Clause power, and it will withstand challenge on that ground.
I don’t think the opinion killed the Commerce Clause, but it has at least stopped its cancerous growth, I hope. Legislation will still frequently state that it is based on the Commerce Clause power, and it will withstand challenge on that ground.
It did no such thing. What makes you think it did?