On Trump and his administration policies

[OKTexas]

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

 

[bendog]

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

I didn't propose the States interfering in their appointments. I'm proposing the States have the ability to nullify any decision they find contrary to their best interest. Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign. They established the federal government including the federal courts by lending them certain powers possessed by the States. If the States find the feds are exceeding the powers granted, they alone should have the power to rein them in. As it is now there is no process to do that short of an amendment. My proposal would give them ongoing authority where a new amendment wouldn't be required for every occurrence and would require only a simple majority.


.

"Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign"?

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Yep, that applies only to the powers granted by the States. The States have the power to delete or revise any powers they have granted, making them the ultimate sovereign. If you doubt me, see Article 5.


.

I rest my case. LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The war on drugs is a failure...”

True.

And the conservative agenda is likewise a failure – but rightists continue to blindly pursue that failed, wrongheaded agenda nonetheless.

 

[OKTexas]

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

I didn't propose the States interfering in their appointments. I'm proposing the States have the ability to nullify any decision they find contrary to their best interest. Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign. They established the federal government including the federal courts by lending them certain powers possessed by the States. If the States find the feds are exceeding the powers granted, they alone should have the power to rein them in. As it is now there is no process to do that short of an amendment. My proposal would give them ongoing authority where a new amendment wouldn't be required for every occurrence and would require only a simple majority.


.

"Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign"?

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Yep, that applies only to the powers granted by the States. The States have the power to delete or revise any powers they have granted, making them the ultimate sovereign. If you doubt me, see Article 5.


.

I rest my case. LOL

So you're choosing to pretend the States can't alter the Constitution, at will, with no federal involvement?

Not much to rest on, since you'd be wrong.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

 

[Slade3200]

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

 

[OKTexas]

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

 

[OKTexas]

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

 

[Slade3200]

I tried to call my friend and they're out of the office today doing constituent services, I'll try again tomorrow.


.

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, I spoke to my friend, they said the legislatures that passed the law sometimes amend a law to conform to a court decision. The congress usually doesn't do it though, what typically happens is the court decisions are incorporated in changes to rules and regulations written by the affected agencies and can be found in the federal registry. Here's one example of such a change.

Federal Register :: Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage

You'd need an army of lawyers to pull all the references incorporated in changes like this one.

Here's a search for changes to the ACA by the IRS.

Federal Register :: Document Search Results for 'IRS changes ACA'


.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Thanks for doing the leg work on this and checking with your friend. I was looking through some of these documents that you linked to the other day and unless you know the entire law in and out it becomes very difficult and time consuming to find the specifics that we are discussing. I don't know if I care enough to dig through all of these files.

What was your attorney friends thoughts on it? Is it standard practice for judges to make ruling that effect the implementation of laws through amendments? If so, what constitutes crossing the line?

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

Thats pretty crazy... I'd love to know the inside scoop of how all that played out. It sounds like it was a request by the government during court proceedings.

Check out Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. I've highlighted key pieces:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16-30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce." Art. I, ?8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court's precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court's cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching "activity." E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." Pp. 16-27. (b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27-30. 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, ?8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31-32. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33- 44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

 

[OKTexas]

They agree when a court disregards black letter law and allows something not included in the law to become effective, is crossing the line. It ignores the 4 corners doctrine which prohibits a court from considering anything outside the document itself, and places the court in a position where thy are legislating from the bench.

I made a point earlier that you didn't comment on, that being, the court denied a presidential line item veto because he would be enacting a law in a form that congress never voted on. Yet they seem to have no problem assuming that power themselves. I actually wrote a letter to Roberts binging up this fact, but never got an answer. I would love to get a one on one interview with him to debate the merits of both decisions.

.

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

Thats pretty crazy... I'd love to know the inside scoop of how all that played out. It sounds like it was a request by the government during court proceedings.

Check out Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. I've highlighted key pieces:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16-30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce." Art. I, ?8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court's precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court's cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching "activity." E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." Pp. 16-27. (b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27-30. 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, ?8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31-32. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33- 44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

Crazy is a mild way of putting it. The Constitution say all legislation raising revenue must originate in the house of reps, see article 1, section 7 clause 1. This tax originated in the court. Like I said, a tax liability for not having health insurance did not previously exist. Are you starting to get it now?

BTW Roberts said congress has the power to regulate commerce, that's not what the Constitution says, it says they have the right to regulate "interstate commerce", see article 1, section 8, clause 3, health insurance isn't sold interstate.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I understand the issues with the line item veto from the executive but isn't it the job of the SCOTUS to determine which elements of laws are constitutional or not. They did the same thing with the Voting Rights act finding section 4 unconstitutional and thus striking it down while keeping other sections. Do you find these actions as an overreach by the courts?

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

Thats pretty crazy... I'd love to know the inside scoop of how all that played out. It sounds like it was a request by the government during court proceedings.

Check out Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. I've highlighted key pieces:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16-30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce." Art. I, ?8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court's precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court's cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching "activity." E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." Pp. 16-27. (b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27-30. 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, ?8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31-32. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33- 44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

Crazy is a mild way of putting it. The Constitution say all legislation raising revenue must originate in the house of reps, see article 1, section 7 clause 1. This tax originated in the court. Like I said, a tax liability for not having health insurance did not previously exist. Are you starting to get it now?

BTW Roberts said congress has the power to regulate commerce, that's not what the Constitution says, it says they have the right to regulate "interstate commerce", see article 1, section 8, clause 3, health insurance isn't sold interstate.


.

Where's ya go Slade?


.

 

[Slade3200]

You're not getting the point, they didn't just strike portions of the law, they altered them to include things not originally included. They struck down the penalty, instituted a tax, not included in the law, they allowed payments for subsidies for any exchange, not included in the law. They didn't do that with the VRA.


.

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

Thats pretty crazy... I'd love to know the inside scoop of how all that played out. It sounds like it was a request by the government during court proceedings.

Check out Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. I've highlighted key pieces:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16-30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce." Art. I, ?8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court's precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court's cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching "activity." E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." Pp. 16-27. (b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27-30. 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, ?8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31-32. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33- 44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

Crazy is a mild way of putting it. The Constitution say all legislation raising revenue must originate in the house of reps, see article 1, section 7 clause 1. This tax originated in the court. Like I said, a tax liability for not having health insurance did not previously exist. Are you starting to get it now?

BTW Roberts said congress has the power to regulate commerce, that's not what the Constitution says, it says they have the right to regulate "interstate commerce", see article 1, section 8, clause 3, health insurance isn't sold interstate.


.

Where's ya go Slade?


.

Apologies, got busy yesterday. Yeah I get the argument that you are making and you have a valid constitutional argument. I get frustrated by the politics of everything. The amount of obstruction that's caused by our ideological differences reached a fever pitch with Obama and I wish congress and the GOP could have found a way to work with Obama and the Dems to do more to help America, or at least give some of their ideas an honest shot. The GOP was out to make everything Obama fail from the get go. If congress wasn't so broken I'd share more of your criticisms for the aggressive actions of executive authority that were used in the ACA and things like DACA. But there is another side of me that just wants things to happen and not just argued about.

Republicans have the power now and the Dems are hell bent to obstruct. You are about to get a taste the same frustrations that I just expressed as you see Trump wanted to push an agenda that keeps getting blocked by the Dems. You will see Trump stretch the power of the executive to the max to get things done. My guess is that you will be far less critical of it because it aligns with an agenda that you agree with. I understand, that's the nature of it, we root for our side. I just hope we can remain as civil and objectionable as possible throughout the process.

I've enjoyed this debate. It was good to dive into the details and not just argue about the petty surface stuff. I appreciate the engagement

 

[OKTexas]

I guess that where we differ. They didn't strike down the mandate section, they said the fines were unconstitutional through commerce but would be constitutional as a tax penalty. The mandate clause was upheld.

Are you saying that Judge Roberts came up with the tax idea himself? Also, what was the original plan on how the mandate was supposed to be handled that was originally presented to him?

It was supposed to be a tax penalty and actually the mandate was stricken, they used the theory that if a tax was levied, then having coverage was technically optional, you could not have it and just pay the tax. They didn't consider that a penalty, even though it operates as a penalty because the liability didn't preexist.

The problem there is there was no such tax in the law and I argue it is an unconstitutional direct tax, it violates the prohibition on direct taxes, see article 1, section 9, clause 4. It isn't an income tax, as allowed by the 16th Amendment, because it's not triggered by income and is added in addition to your normal income tax liability. It would have been permissible if they had allowed an income tax deduction for having insurance, that would be a reduction of an existing tax liability. But congress would have included that, the court had no right to just make it up.

Also I say Roberts because he wrote the opinion, no one knows who actually came up with the scheme.


.

Thats pretty crazy... I'd love to know the inside scoop of how all that played out. It sounds like it was a request by the government during court proceedings.

Check out Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. I've highlighted key pieces:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16-30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce." Art. I, ?8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court's precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court's cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching "activity." E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." Pp. 16-27. (b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Each of this Court's prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act's other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27-30. 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, ?8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31-32. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33- 44. (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

Crazy is a mild way of putting it. The Constitution say all legislation raising revenue must originate in the house of reps, see article 1, section 7 clause 1. This tax originated in the court. Like I said, a tax liability for not having health insurance did not previously exist. Are you starting to get it now?

BTW Roberts said congress has the power to regulate commerce, that's not what the Constitution says, it says they have the right to regulate "interstate commerce", see article 1, section 8, clause 3, health insurance isn't sold interstate.


.

Where's ya go Slade?


.

Apologies, got busy yesterday. Yeah I get the argument that you are making and you have a valid constitutional argument. I get frustrated by the politics of everything. The amount of obstruction that's caused by our ideological differences reached a fever pitch with Obama and I wish congress and the GOP could have found a way to work with Obama and the Dems to do more to help America, or at least give some of their ideas an honest shot. The GOP was out to make everything Obama fail from the get go. If congress wasn't so broken I'd share more of your criticisms for the aggressive actions of executive authority that were used in the ACA and things like DACA. But there is another side of me that just wants things to happen and not just argued about.

Republicans have the power now and the Dems are hell bent to obstruct. You are about to get a taste the same frustrations that I just expressed as you see Trump wanted to push an agenda that keeps getting blocked by the Dems. You will see Trump stretch the power of the executive to the max to get things done. My guess is that you will be far less critical of it because it aligns with an agenda that you agree with. I understand, that's the nature of it, we root for our side. I just hope we can remain as civil and objectionable as possible throughout the process.

I've enjoyed this debate. It was good to dive into the details and not just argue about the petty surface stuff. I appreciate the engagement

While I agree with your frustration with congress, my concern in this discussion was the unconstitutional actions of the court. The court is the last line of defense the people have when the other two branches go off the rails. The politicization of the courts is something I find intolerable, yet too many seem willing to just throw up their hands and say, that's the way it is. When the referees keep changing the rules, there are no rules.