interesting article on supreme court and obama care

[hornadylnl]

I read/heard about this on some other website (comments section as well). Not sure if the rest of you actually listened to this news clip.

We all know that the USSC said this is a tax. KG1 it does not matter what Obama and his administration say. The ruling said it's a tax.

Now at the very end of the news clip the report quotes the Constitution that says that all tax bills must start in the HOUSE and then goes on to explain that the HOUSE bill was not a tax bill and not the final version that was passed. The SENATE version was the one that was pulled into the house and deemed passed.

So in essence proper procedure was not used to pass a "tax bill" and thus the entire law is null and void since by ruling it a tax **AND** congress not following proper procedure it can not be valid.

FOXs is the first to report this so far.

Ok, they can rewrite it and vote again. If it was struck down as unconstitutional, it would be dead forever.

 

[jedi]

Ok, they can rewrite it and vote again. If it was struck down as unconstitutional, it would be dead forever.

does the house have the numbers to actually pass it?

 

[hornadylnl]

does the house have the numbers to actually pass it?

Do the rinos have the spine to stop it? What about when the dems have control of both houses again?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I read/heard about this on some other website (comments section as well). Not sure if the rest of you actually listened to this news clip.

We all know that the USSC said this is a tax. KG1 it does not matter what Obama and his administration say. The ruling said it's a tax.

Now at the very end of the news clip the report quotes the Constitution that says that all tax bills must start in the HOUSE and then goes on to explain that the HOUSE bill was not a tax bill and not the final version that was passed. The SENATE version was the one that was pulled into the house and deemed passed.

So in essence proper procedure was not used to pass a "tax bill" and thus the entire law is null and void since by ruling it a tax **AND** congress not following proper procedure it can not be valid.

FOXs is the first to report this so far.

Unfortunately, I cannot get the video (poor Internet connection), but this is wishful thinking. Our only hope is for repeal, but despite romney's promise, it won't happen.

It's too bad the other, lesser parties can't come up with inspiring, compelling candidates that can capture the public's eye and break this log jam.

 

[jedi]

Do the rinos have the spine to stop it? What about when the dems have control of both houses again?

AWB #2 off course along with WFAM.

 

[mrjarrell]

Unfortunately, I cannot get the video (poor Internet connection), but this is wishful thinking. Our only hope is for repeal, but despite romney's promise, it won't happen.

It's too bad the other, lesser parties can't come up with inspiring, compelling candidates that can capture the public's eye and break this log jam.

Romney has offered to "repeal and replace". Not repeal. He still has plans for a healthcare bill and I will bet good money that it includes a mandate to force purchase, (something he spoke out in favour of when the ACA passed). If you're looking for a saviour you're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[88GT]

Either I'm missing your point or you missed mine.

My apologies. It was my error. I was rushing to read it and reply before I had to leave.

I don't consider it the same thing because you're not being taxed specifically for not having the geothermal. The taxes are applied for other reasons, and they allow for a reduction by incentivizing geothermal installation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you're looking for a saviour you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Amen to this!

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you're looking for a saviour you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I get the feeling that Washington is looking at us with an evil grin saying, "Heads, I win, Tales you lose!"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

My apologies. It was my error. I was rushing to read it and reply before I had to leave.

I don't consider it the same thing because you're not being taxed specifically for not having the geothermal. The taxes are applied for other reasons, and they allow for a reduction by incentivizing geothermal installation.

Right...but it has the same effect, is my point. If you do what our elected officials want, you are not penalized as much as if you don't. With its compulsatory features, the ACA is a different, more egregious, twist to the typical government social and economic engineering tactics, that's for sure.

 

[88GT]

Right...but it has the same effect, is my point. If you do what our elected officials want, you are not penalized as much as if you don't. With its compulsatory features, the ACA is a different, more egregious, twist to the typical government social and economic engineering tactics, that's for sure.

Yes, it's the same effect, but that hardly makes it the same thing.

There's a principle involved that surpasses just the end result we see.

 

[Fargo]

This is the part where my knowledge base can't keep up with the discussion. Can you explain--or at least send me in the direction of a source that will as I realize this is probably more than just an average INGO post--the difference and why that difference is important in terms of practical consequences?

Thanks.

The quick and dirty answer is:

The constitution grants the feds an enumerated taxing power in Article 1, Section 8. It does not grant some sort of "Penalty Power" outside of the ability to impose a penalty pursuant to the breaking of a law which was passed pursuant to another enumerated power.

Now, while I am skeptical that the taxing power can legitimately be used to coerce action outside of an enumerated power, the current caselaw arising out of permits/licenses says that the feds can do so.

Therefore, if this is is just a tax, then according to the current caselaw it is potentially constitutional.

If it is a penalty, it has to be supported by another enumerated power, in this case the claim was that it was the commerce clause and/or necessary and proper clause. Both those arguments failed so if this was a penalty, the law failed.

Roberts found it to be a tax, and there is some rational basis for finding it to be so. However, I personally don't think it was. It was termed a penalty in the law and I just don't see how you refuse to give that part of the law effect. Why did Roberts ignore the plain text of the statute? It simply doesn't make sense to me. The dissent summed it up much better than I can but that is my quick and dirty impression of the decision.

Best,

Joe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, it's the same effect, but that hardly makes it the same thing.

There's a principle involved that surpasses just the end result we see.

I agree. It's sort of like an inversion of the well-worn government strategies, but still using taxation as the lever to force you to conform.

 

[88GT]

The quick and dirty answer is:

The constitution grants the feds an enumerated taxing power in Article 1, Section 8. It does not grant some sort of "Penalty Power" outside of the ability to impose a penalty pursuant to the breaking of a law which was passed pursuant to another enumerated power.

Now, while I am skeptical that the taxing power can legitimately be used to coerce action outside of an enumerated power, the current caselaw arising out of permits/licenses says that the feds can do so.

Therefore, if this is is just a tax, then according to the current caselaw it is potentially constitutional.

If it is a penalty, it has to be supported by another enumerated power, in this case the claim was that it was the commerce clause and/or necessary and proper clause. Both those arguments failed so if this was a penalty, the law failed.

Roberts found it to be a tax, and there is some rational basis for finding it to be so. However, I personally don't think it was. It was termed a penalty in the law and I just don't see how you refuse to give that part of the law effect. Why did Roberts ignore the plain text of the statute? It simply doesn't make sense to me. The dissent summed it up much better than I can but that is my quick and dirty impression of the decision.

Best,

Joe

Is there? Would it be in the opinion?

I agree. It's sort of like an inversion of the well-worn government strategies, but still using taxation as the lever to force you to conform.

Yeah. When hornady gave his lawn mowing example, I felt intuitively that it wasn't a fair like comparison. But it took me a while to argue with myself over how to explain it because on the surface it IS so similar to every other tax they've laid on our shoulders.

Maybe Fargo's explanation about the legal difference between a penalty and a tax are part of it and I just don't have the knowledge/experience with this kind of thing to put it into words.

I know it's different. I'm just having problems figuring out how to verbalize what I know.

 

[hornadylnl]

Is there? Would it be in the opinion?


Yeah. When hornady gave his lawn mowing example, I felt intuitively that it wasn't a fair like comparison. But it took me a while to argue with myself over how to explain it because on the surface it IS so similar to every other tax they've laid on our shoulders.

Maybe Fargo's explanation about the legal difference between a penalty and a tax are part of it and I just don't have the knowledge/experience with this kind of thing to put it into words.

I know it's different. I'm just having problems figuring out how to verbalize what I know.

The government has a goal of affecting an action. They impose a tax, fee, fine, or penalty to achieve the action. The beginning and the end are the same. Who really cares what goes on inbetween.

 

[Fargo]

Is there? Would it be in the opinion?

Yes, it is in the opinion. Quick and dirty again; it has to do with the historical distinctions between taxes and penalties. Penalties are generally by definition imposed for illegal acts. Taxes may be imposed or not imposed based upon purely legal actions. Here, Robert's found that Obamacare does not make being insured illegal, but rather that it imposes a tax on the uninsured.

As noted above, I think that reading violates the plain language of the statute but there is an argument for it.

On an unrelated note, why does anyone here thinks that the commerce clause analysis is dicta?

Best,

Joe

 

[88GT]

The government has a goal of affecting an action. They impose a tax, fee, fine, or penalty to achieve the action. The beginning and the end are the same. Who really cares what goes on inbetween.

I think it matters, but I wouldn't expect you to.