Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,124
- 14,807
- 2,180
The constitution, which granted the court jurisdiction over any cases that arise under the constitution.
The ACA was not a constitutional issue, the court ruled on a legislative act and essentially amended it.
They were cases that arose with the US as a party. As it was a federal lawsuit against the treasury. And a case that arose under US law. As ACA is US law. Both of which are explicit jurisdictions of the federal judiciary.
The Constitution does not give them that power.
The power to adjudicate cases over which it has jurisdiction? Um, yeah. It did.
One question, was the law constitutional as written?
Depends on which part you're talking about. The court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the entire law. Only portions of it. For the authority to tax under ACA, absolutely. For the other portions, there's been no explicit determination.
Though the law is enforcible unless found unconstitutional.
Did the court, in yesterdays ruling find the subsidies as written unconstitutional? Answer the question and stop the games.
They didn't rule on their constitutionality. In fact, there is no mention of 'constitutionality' in the entire majority ruling.