How Can The SCOTUS Say That The Fine For NOT Having Healthcare Is A TAX When Congress And Obama Said It Was Not?

zbacku 2012/06/29 00:04:34
Care To Comment?
What Do You Think?
R.I.P. The Constitution Of The United States.
Obama:  Liar In Chief.
Add Photos & Videos
Can ANY Liberal justify this destruction of the Constitution by ONE man other than the fact that Obama LIED to the people of the United States from the beginning?

Page 44: Chief Roberts says:

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

"The Federal Government does not have the power to
order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A
would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command.
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a
tax on those without health insurance."

Page 58: Chief Roberts says:

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and
unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot
be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to
engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those
who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go
without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."

Did not Obama and his Lawyers bring their argument to the Court under the 'Commerce Clause'???? YES it did. Why then did Roberts base his entire decision on the fact that it is a TAX that makes Obamacare work?

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • sjalan 2012/07/10 03:30:01
    Care To Comment?
    Simply because it was the only way the Cheif Justice could give the Republicans an out to get rid of it. If it was confirmed as a control of interstate commmerce under the that clause then it would remain a FEDERAL process and not be replealable
  • Starman - Guru of Reason 2012/06/30 16:19:45
    Care To Comment?
    Starman - Guru of Reason
    It's a legal argument based on the taxing authority in the constitution. The difference is that is not intended as a revenue generating mechanism. The revenue from the penalties is not expected to be significant. The purpose is to encourage those who can afford healthcare insurance to purchase it, and to make it affordable for a much larger portion of Americans.
  • Cleaver62 2012/06/30 14:16:32
    Care To Comment?
    They can say anything they want. Isn't that what Republicans are saying about the decesion in general. They can say it is constitutional but that doesn't mean that it is. Who is right? Who knows. It is what it is.
  • Idiot repubs 2012/06/30 13:59:52
    What Do You Think?
    Idiot repubs
    It's the law, it's constitutional, buy some insurance and stop leeching off the rest of us.
  • bob h. 2012/06/30 13:43:56
    Care To Comment?
    bob h.
    I can't believe you did all this research for the sole purpose of pissing yourself off. That's dedication. OTOH, maybe the Health Care bill finds you in the nick of time.
  • beachbum 2012/06/29 10:17:09
    Care To Comment?
    Yes, they can, and they did.
  • Razoreye001 2012/06/29 00:37:27
    Care To Comment?
    don't worry, you'll see how this will improve the country as a whole.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/09 18:06:28

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals