I’m asking him to show how it’s unconstitutional. You can’t just declare something unconstitutional by fiat. You have to show what part of the Constitution it violates.
$200K individual, $250K couple adjusted gross income.
“But they’s raisin’ taxes!”, sez Billy Bob Bass Boat at the Teabagger rally.
We can certainly debate whether the bill is valid under the CC (I actually don’t think the argument that it is valid under the CC is that good). But when this goes to court, the government is going to argue for validity under both the CC and the 16th Amendment.
You’re joining an anarcho-syndicalist collective? 
To nitpick your nitpick, the House passed HR 3590 on October 8. The Senate then amended the measure and passed it on Christmas Eve. The House, of course, took up the Senate-amended text and passed it.
Here’s the funny part: the original House-passed bill had to do with tax incentives for members of the military trying to buy houses. The Senate amended that bill with all the health care stuff.
So, in fact, a revenue bill did originate in the House, the Senate was free to “propose or concur with amendments as on other bills,” as stated by Article I Section 7, and now we have law.
I, too, am very curious about the constitutionality of requiring people to buy something. I fully support the bill, I support requiring people to buy insurance, but I’m not quite sure how to justify this as supported by the Constitution.
Can you show that the feds are Constitutionally forbidden from doing any of these things? I know they could legislate a line item veto if they wanted. Just because they currently don’t do something doesn’t mean they can’t.
I hope your hands are clean, the way you keep putting words in my mouth. Why is the concept of taxation a justification for inefficient government?
Actually, you don’t. You have to show what part of the constitution something is based on. Then, and only then, does it matter if it conflicts with a violation.
While Shodan typically overstates the case in my epxerience, his principle is accurate: the Federal government is one of limited (although extremely broad) powers, and any power not expressly granted the Feds. or inferrable under the “necessary and proper” clause as being needed or useful in carrying out an express power (however liberally construed) is a power retained by the states and not granted to the Feds.
That’s why, typically, a Federal law regulating, say, building construction will strain gnats and swallow camels to demonstrate that nails used in such construction were shipped by interstate commerce.
No one is required to buy anything. Some of them just lose a tax credit if they don’t. It’s no different than tax credits for college tuition or home buyers.
The judicial system is not limited to the interpretation of the legislature as to where the constitutionality of a particular law may be found.
I know what enumerated powers are. If that’s the argument, then the argument is that it violates the 10th Amendment. That argument is specious demagoguery and will fail any court challenge, but it at least points to something in the Constitution, which is what I was asking for.
The ability to impose taxes for the purposes of national defense and to declare wars IS an enumerated power, though, so the 10th Amendment has no application there.
Um… almost everything? Except what is listed in the enumerated powers.
(Like force people to buy health insurance, for one…)
To an extent you are correct, and the “extent” is contingent upon the context of the discussion. The U.S. Constitution does contain some provisions where both Congress and the states are expressly prohibited from doing something.
However, when the discussion moves to the realm of Congress having the authority to do something under Article I, Section 8, then the burden rests on the individual asserting there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution giving Congress the power to do whatever it is doing. In other words, the burden is not on the individual stating Congress lacks this under Article I, Section 8, but the individual/person/people stating Congress has the authority under Article I, Section 8.
But that’s not how it is phrased in the bill. The bill literally says, “Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage,” and states “An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.” If you do not comply, you are assessed a “Penalty.” It’s all there in black and white in Section 1501. Note that the tax is not generally imposed on people, and then credits or deductions applied to mitigate the impact on people who take particular actions. In this case, as tax only applies to people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.
Now, I suppose one could say that we are not required to file income taxes, except that if we choose not to then we have to pay a little more money out of our pocket, or perhaps have a surprise vacation at an interesting hotel. But in either case, I think we are stretching the term “not required” by quite a bit.
Commerce clause, general welfare.
The feds can pretty much do anything they want.
Both of which have been expanded, greatly, over their original intent.
No. You’re the one claiming it’s a violation. You need to prove it. Good luck. This argument is hot air will amount to nothing. It’s really just an income tax, after all. The feds have very broad powers in that regard. Practically nobody will have to pay it anyway. Anyone making $200K a year is already going to have health insurance.
This opinion from the Washington Post makes a compelling argument that it is.
The bill imposes a penalty. It does not provide a tax credit. If Obama wants to raise taxes on certain individuals he needs to call it what it is. AFAIK it is not called a tax.