I’m not following your objection. The two examples you give in the last sentence are powers explicitly given to Congress in the constitution.
A question: if a power is granted to Congress, they’re under no constitutional obligation to use it wisely or fairly, right? So, given that Congress has the power to issue taxes, and given that the income tax has differential rates for people, am I right in thinking that Congress can issue differential taxes based on reasons that they think are good (as long as they don’t run afoul of explicit constitutional limitations, e.g., they’re not violating the first amendment in the process)?
If so, what constitutional provision would STOP congress from taxing people who don’t own cars at a far higher rate than people who do? Obviously that would be a dick maneuver, but would it be unconstitional?
In the modern ear, I think the SCOTUS has granted wide latitude to Congress in the area of taxation. However, if it were to be challenged, it would probably be the same way the income tax was challenged-- as a violation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
The 16th amendment allows this to be violated in the case of taxes on income (of any source), but it doesn’t say anything about taxing the lack of property.
No, you great screaming twit, that’s exactly what the Bill of Rights is. Anything else to be prohibited is either in a later amendment or “prohibited” by Congress **just not voting for it. **This is not explicitly prohibited, Congress voted for it, IT IS LAW.
Good grief, you stinking liberals & your living document crap. “Oh, this is unconstitutional because of a penumbration of implied theoretical axiomatic rights to be derived by logic & enshrined in common law. Also I don’t like it.” That doesn’t cut any ice with me, boy, I’m a son of the strict construction Right.
Does “commerce” have something to do with the mandate? 'Cause I kind of think buying some service is commerce. And hospitals are part of a professional network that crosses states, so all large-scale health care planning would be sort of inter-state even if we were to claim that health insurance companies are not (though of course they are as well.)
Oh, look, your stupid Tenth Amendment says this is OK! Suck it up.
Assuming that Congress can demonstrate how the law is “‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.’” See Gonzalez vs Raich, United States vs Lopez, then the answer to your question is yes.
Interesting. I suspect, however, that such a tax would be legal. Consider that Congress can essentially tax you for not taking care of kids (what they really do is give you a tax break for taking care of kids, which amounts to the same thing). This isn’t something specifically allowed by the 16th amendment. There are of course myriad other tax breaks available, which are equivalent to a tax penalty for not taking advantage of that tax break, since everyone who doesn’t take advantage of them shoulders a higher tax load therefore.
So it seems to me that Congress could simply say, “We’re offering a $10,000 tax break to everyone who has a car. At the same time, we’re raising everyone’s income tax by $10,000.” Would there be any constitutional problem with this? Obviously there are all sorts of other problems, but any constitutional ones?
Judge George Steeh put it best, in his decision [Warning: PDF] dismissing a lawsuit challenging PPACA:
You are woefully uneducated on this topic and, thus, completely wrong. The Constitution sets the limits on the federal government. Many at the time did not see a reason to list rights that could not be restricted because:
- It was not necessary. The Constitution already placed the limits on the federal government
- Some feared that a list of rights that are not to be restricted would not be complete and, in fact, open the door for government encroachment.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Because hospitals may be involved in interstate commerce they can be, and are, regulated by the federal government. This has absolutely nothing to do with forcing an individual to purchase an insurance policy. Try to think a little and stop looking for ways to twist the commerce clause to justify everything the feds try to do.
That logic is more tortured than Wickard. To me it is no different than saying “at some point in your life you will use some type of transportation and, since transportation falls under interstate commerce, we will tell you what you must do. Go buy a Chevy.”
At some point while you were editing this post, you should have considered tempering your language.
This is a Warning to avoid direct personal insults in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
TWEEEEEET!
EVERYONE, dial back the hostility.
[ /Moderating ]
You seriously believe that the Constitution is construed as, “If it’s not prohibited to the federal government, then it’s permitted?”
That’s really funny.
And utterly wrong, as proved by US v. Morrison, US v. Lopez, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, etc.
Of course they could do this. By your logic, they do this all the time - the home interest mortage deduction is actually subsidizing homeowners at the expense of renters, if you want to think of it that way.
But your plan would require raising taxes. I see little courage in the Democratic party to do that, given that they’re already being (very successfully) tarred with the tax and spend liberal label in the mind of the American public.
By the way, they sort of do what you want, already… healthcare premiums paid on behalf of workers by companies are exempt from income tax (up to some really high limits), even though they are clearly compensation. (remember the hubbub over the ‘Cadillac Plans’ of unions? this was what that issue was about).
I’m having a hard time imagining the broader regulatory scheme that requires everybody to buy a car. Is Congress intending to make transportation more available? What are the penalties for failure to comply? Are people who live in big cities, who have a low income, and who have medical conditions preventing them from driving exempted? Are they just giving tax credits to people who buy new cars (like Cash for Clunkers), which could in a twisted way be viewed as “penalizing” those who chose to buy a car after the program ends?
Blalron, I don’t like using Raich in this argument because it deals with regulating an illegal product, muddying the waters. Fortunately it’s only from 2005 so stare decisis won’t really kick in when we overturn that bitch…
As for Lopez, that case makes the point very clearly, in my mind, that Obamacare is unconstitutional. For those who don’t know, Lopez was a case about some kid who brought a gun to school, violating the 1990 gun-free school zone act by the feds. Since Congress has no constitutional authority to mess with schools like that, they had to claim that bringing guns to school had interstate economic implications, by increasing the liklihood of crime, etc.
The court called bullshit. As wiki puts it:
I disagree. In Lopez, the Court ruled that finding a connection between personal possession of a firearm in a local school zone and interstate commerce would require them to stack “inference upon inference.” In comparison, the connection with uninsured shifting their costs on to other market participants is very concrete and direct.
Again, if this were a program to give a tax credit to everyone buying insurance then your comment would make some sense. Think of it as raising taxes on everyone but giving the tax back if you purchase a car. And, what difference does any regulatory framework make. Are you saying Congress CAN make everyone purchase a car but won’t because there is no need? Think about what you are asking.
Yeah - I think Lopez was a cautionary decision. The Court was basically saying that the Commerce Clause isn’t infinitely elastic. They don’t want to set strict guidelines on it, because there is an acceptance that sometimes the government is going to have to act in certain areas, but no longer can there simply be a handwaving to commerce effects. Instead, the case for the effect on commerce needs to be clearly set out - and it was here.