Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally are

[American]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...preme-court-rules-on-healthcare-read-opinion/

Obamacare is....

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. Con-gress 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 prin-ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and
enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus-tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

Not Commerce regulation.

b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Nec-essary 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 ex-ercise 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 mak-ing those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.

Necessary, but not proper.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ-ual 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 ar-gument: 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 man-date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be-cause “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 inter-3
pret 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 appli-cation 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 sub-stance 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. The
payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay-ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But
the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches
negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It
may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40

A TAX.

Conclusion: Obama lied to the American people, when he said it wasn't a tax.

Those who supported the notion of expanded commerce powers in other related threads, should now realize they are wrong. Those who support Obamacare, are supporting a tax upon the American people. And this, as everyone knows, has always been the primary way the left tries to achieve its agenda of social justice.

 

[Sentrix]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

This penalty was never framed as a tax. It was repeatedly determined to not be a tax. However, John Roberts and the four liberals found a way to make the law work. They essentially changed the law in order to make it constitutional ("tax-writing") In my view, that is legislating from the bench. The dissenting opinion was pretty much aimed at Roberts, disappointed with his judicial activism.

From Justice Kennedy's dissent:

... "We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not" ...

... "What Congress calls a penalty, we call a tax. In short, the court imposes a tax when Congress deliberately rejected a tax" ...

... “In a few cases, this Court has held that a ‘tax’ imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty, but we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power — even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty” ...

... “Taxes have never been popular … and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off" ...

And my favorite:

... "Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling" ...

Yesterday was a sad day for America.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

This penalty was never framed as a tax

wrong. in the DOJ's legal brief, they cited it as a tax as a reason it was constitutional.

one side of the Obama face said it wasn't a tax, but out of the other side of his face, he did argue it is a tax.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

This penalty was never framed as a tax. It was repeatedly determined to not be a tax. However, John Roberts and the four liberals found a way to make the law work. They essentially changed the law in order to make it constitutional ("tax-writing") In my view, that is legislating from the bench. The dissenting opinion was pretty much aimed at Roberts, disappointed with his judicial activism.

From Justice Kennedy's dissent:






And my favorite:



Yesterday was a sad day for America.

I agree, what I'm doing is stating what it OFFICIAL now is.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

wrong. in the DOJ's legal brief, they cited it as a tax as a reason it was constitutional.

one side of the Obama face said it wasn't a tax, but out of the other side of his face, he did argue it is a tax.

Yes, they played both sides.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

We on the right now call the Obamacare decision as Roberts v. America. The decision validated fraud in the inducement. The fraud delegitimizes Obamacare in the eyes of tens of millions of conservatives. This bodes ill for social peace in America. Fraud can never be accepted.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

The dissenting opinion begins on Page 127 of the OP link.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

We on the right now call the Obamacare decision as Roberts v. America. The decision validated fraud in the inducement. The fraud delegitimizes Obamacare in the eyes of tens of millions of conservatives. This bodes ill for social peace in America. Fraud can never be accepted.

Wait are you saying that before this decision that Obamacare was legitimized in the eyes of millions of conservatives? Also for all your brewhaha about "Roberts vs. America" don't forget that there are 4 other justices who also voted with Roberts and there are millions of Americans who support the law.

I never understand why some people believe their opinions speak for everyone else, or that there's is the authoritative opinion for whatever reason.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Wait are you saying that before this decision that Obamacare was legitimized in the eyes of millions of conservatives?

No.

Also for all your brewhaha about "Roberts vs. America" don't forget that there are 4 other justices who also voted with Roberts and there are millions of Americans who support the law.

None of the liberal or conservative justices agreed with Roberts' twisted logic on the Commerce Clause AND the taxation power. He was the only one who signed on to his opinion. Ginsberg wrote the leftist dissent, and Kennedy wrote the conservative dissent. Roberts is an outlier who legitimated congressional fraud in the inducement.

I never understand why some people believe their opinions speak for everyone else, or that there's is the authoritative opinion for whatever reason.

Your point is well taken. My opinion is consistent with and reflects the majority view in the conservative legal community.

 

[Thunder]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

...This bodes ill for social peace in America. Fraud can never be accepted.

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I could not care less if Roberts wants to call it a tax or a burrito.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

The institutions of America are becoming hollow because so many people believe they are illegitimate. In turn that means tens of millions have lost faith in America. That weakens America. This is happening at a time of political, economic and social crisis for the country. Deeply divided polities are incapable of dealing effectively with hostile polities with social cohesion. A whole series of unfortunate consequences are likely to happen because this is the pattern of history when polities become so divided they can no longer act effectively.

What should happen? We shouldn't have created a political culture in which we see each other as enemies instead of opponents. Both sides are at fault.

I think the country is already past the tipping point. What should have been is no longer relevant. History teaches us that the past can never be restored. Like Tom Wolfe said: You can never go home again.

 

[Thunder]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

...A whole series of unfortunate consequences are likely to happen because this is the pattern of history when polities become so divided they can no longer act effectively.....

I ask again:

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I ask again:

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

Would you please make your question more specific? Are you asking me what will happen or should happen with Obamacare? Or are you asking me about will happen or should happen to American political culture or the polity itself?

If you would like a specific answer to your questions help me out by being more specific. Thanks.

 

[lpast]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...preme-court-rules-on-healthcare-read-opinion/

Obamacare is....


Not Commerce regulation.


Necessary, but not proper.


A TAX.

Conclusion: Obama lied to the American people, when he said it wasn't a tax.

Those who supported the notion of expanded commerce powers in other related threads, should now realize they are wrong. Those who support Obamacare, are supporting a tax upon the American people. And this, as everyone knows, has always been the primary way the left tries to achieve its agenda of social justice.

American, take a deep breath and read slowly...Obama never called it a tax...TRUE...The supreme court re named it a tax and kept it the law of the land...that is NOT an OBAMA lie....he didnt say it wasnt a tax then on his own volition say hahaha I lied it is a tax...there is a big difference here

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

American, take a deep breath and read slowly...Obama never called it a tax...TRUE...The supreme court re named it a tax and kept it the law of the land...that is NOT an OBAMA lie....he didnt say it wasnt a tax then on his own volition say hahaha I lied it is a tax...there is a big difference here

President Obama said the Mandate wasn't a tax, and then he sent his lawyers to court where they argued the Mandate was a legitimate exercise of the power of taxation. This is fraud.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I ask again:

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

In reading the pronouncements of some far right individuals here, I have always felt they wanted some sort of violent uprising that led to parts of the nation breaking apart and the dissolving of the USA as we know it. They seem to believe that a right wing libertarian paradise somewhere here is better than the nation we now have even if it means destroying it in the process.

They seem to encourage the enemy mentality. They seem to enjoy hyper partisan vitriol. They seem to thrive on the possibility of a collapse of a society they can no longer identify with or support.

They engage and participate in a self fulfilling prophecy preaching that the nation is hopelessly divided and doomed while all the time they are greasing the tracks so the roller coaster jumps the curve then they can say they told us so.

That is my take on them.

 

[Sentrix]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

wrong. in the DOJ's legal brief, they cited it as a tax as a reason it was constitutional.

one side of the Obama face said it wasn't a tax, but out of the other side of his face, he did argue it is a tax.

Cited taxing power as a reason it was constitutional in the legal brief, sure.
They also contradicted themselves in the same brief by saying it wasn't a tax via Injunction act.

But what's important is that Obama and Congress' intent was totally ignored. They said it was not a tax, but rather a penalty, and primarily used the commerce clause as their reasoning. Regardless of what excuse the lawyers might make up to save it to be constitutional, the original intent needs to be understood. This was re-written by Roberts and the 4 liberal justices to be a tax.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In reading the pronouncements of some far right individuals here, I have always felt they wanted some sort of violent uprising that led to parts of the nation breaking apart and the dissolving of the USA as we know it. They seem to believe that a right wing libertarian paradise somewhere here is better than the nation we now have even if it means destroying it in the process.

They seem to encourage the enemy mentality. They seem to enjoy hyper partisan vitriol. They seem to thrive on the possibility of a collapse of a society they can no longer identify with or support.

They engage and participate in a self fulfilling prophecy preaching that the nation is hopelessly divided and doomed while all the time they are greasing the tracks so the roller coaster jumps the curve then they can say they told us so.

That is my take on them.

Much of what you've said here applies equally to the progressive side of the aisle too.

What I think many conservatives and right-libertarians see is the nation they love being destroyed before their very eyes. Laugh if you please and call this "hyperbole," but that's my take.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In reading the pronouncements of some far right individuals here, I have always felt they wanted some sort of violent uprising that led to parts of the nation breaking apart and the dissolving of the USA as we know it. They seem to believe that a right wing libertarian paradise somewhere here is better than the nation we now have even if it means destroying it in the process.

They seem to encourage the enemy mentality. They seem to enjoy hyper partisan vitriol. They seem to thrive on the possibility of a collapse of a society they can no longer identify with or support.

They engage and participate in a self fulfilling prophecy preaching that the nation is hopelessly divided and doomed while all the time they are greasing the tracks so the roller coaster jumps the curve then they can say they told us so.

That is my take on them.

I knew a different America based on competence and a high level of education for the average American. I knew a country of unparalled affluence. I knew a land of hope for the majority of people. There were many things about it that needed change, e.g., racism, homophobia and misogyny. But what do we have now?

There is quite literally nothing any more that unites the American people. History tells us that the lack of social cohesion will greatly weaken America. That's one of the reasons I have become a neo-isolationist. America no longer has the social cohesion necessary to face down the Chinese or Iranians. It's best for America to come home and figure out what can be done to change the glidepath.

 

[a351]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I could not care less if Roberts wants to call it a tax or a burrito.

It's quite an important distinction.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

In reading the pronouncements of some far right individuals here, I have always felt they wanted some sort of violent uprising that led to parts of the nation breaking apart and the dissolving of the USA as we know it. They seem to believe that a right wing libertarian paradise somewhere here is better than the nation we now have even if it means destroying it in the process.

They seem to encourage the enemy mentality. They seem to enjoy hyper partisan vitriol. They seem to thrive on the possibility of a collapse of a society they can no longer identify with or support.

They engage and participate in a self fulfilling prophecy preaching that the nation is hopelessly divided and doomed while all the time they are greasing the tracks so the roller coaster jumps the curve then they can say they told us so.

That is my take on them.

When I voluntarily help my neighbor in need that is charity, when you, through gov't force, demand that I help your neighbor in need that is tyranny. ObamaCare crosses that line, from gov't demanding that only EMERGENCY, life saving care, be given to ALL (and thus its costs shared by all), to now saying that ANY CARE DESEIRED is now a "right" of those that can not (or will not) pay. This is income redistribution in its purist form, hijacking the "private" medical care insurance industry, by the gov't, and redefining "risk" based premuims as "fairness" based premiums (based on your abililty to pay, not on your actuarial risk), mandating what must be/may not be included in ALL "private" medical care insurance and limitting anyone's ability to refuse to play along by imposing tax penalties for simply choosing to pay cash for their own medical care.

 

[Arbo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Those who supported the notion of expanded commerce powers in other related threads, should now realize they are wrong.

They may realize it, but they will never admit it.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

They may realize it, but they will never admit it.

Why do you think they were wrong?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

They may realize it, but they will never admit it.

Most that support income redistribtion do not care, at all, HOW it is "justified", only that it be placed into law. The nonsense idea that ALL medical care insurance premiums no longer be based on "risk", but should be based on "fairness" (ability to pay) is INSANE, as it destroys the very foundation of the insurance concept, sharing costs based on RISK. The ONLY separtaion (option?) left under ObamaCare, to make your insurance premium amount smaller, is to increase the deducatable/co-pay (or out of pocket amount due), this, of course, will have the OPPOSITE of the desried effect, as the more affluent will now pay much LESS for insurance raising the cost of those left with the "near free" low deducatble/low co-pay policies available to ACTUALLY HELP them. The will then buy the least expensive "insurance" offered and basically pay cash for "the best" care, as they now do.

It matters not, if you are poor and are EVEN GIVEN some "cheap" insurance policy that covers only medical expenses over $5,000/year, and requires a $20 to $50 co-pay, since you could not likely afford them anyway, any money spent on such a policy, by the taxpayers, is WASTED for 90% of those given that kind of policy. Only a person needing over $5,000 for a single treatment would likely make such a claim, and those are quite rare. The counter, offered for that in ObamaCare, is to mandate that "wellness care" or "preventive care" visits be free, but IMHO few, if any, of the poor will bother with this service and will continue to seek ER care, when ill, as it has no deductable/co-pay, which is what they want, are used to and basically need.