- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,554
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
how so-if the part of the law that allowed Roberts to claim it was a tax no longer exists, then the ruling that upheld it no longer applies
Because its a non sequiter.
the question was whether the individual mandate was constitutional. Not whether thus the entire ACA was constitutional.
Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate constituted a tax.. which is a power granted to congress in the constitution.
The individual mandate has thus become moot. That's it.
that does not mean that Medicaid expansion, Medicare changes to fee schedules for physicians, exchanges,, tax subsidies for healthcare provisions etc.. which is all "obamacare".. is now "unconstitutional".
Any first year law student should understand that.. come on man.