Does this decision effectively gut the AIA since Congress can simply declare any “tax” to not be a tax?
Yes. Yes, I do.
I just thought Lobohan would want to hop over to that thread and correct Euphonious Polemic. Kind of a public service.
You guys realize that the winger websites have all seized on this whole “tax” thing to be outraged about, don’t you? That’s why you’re seeing the unified outrage by the usual suspects here. I would recommend not engaging with the supposed black conservative who can afford to pay for medical care out of pocket, but refuses to get insurance. For consumer choice reasons, I guess. Though you’d have to be an unattached 20-something with lousy income to want to make that “choice,” even though it’s not really a choice.
I knew he’d turn into David Souter! It was only a matter of time.
Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit.
Again, the personal discussion (even of yourself) is not the main focus here. Please let this go.
Again, the personal commentary doesn’t belong in this forum.
Yes it does.
Write any law with a penalty. but have it function like a tax. It gets through on this precedent.
Does today’s ruling mean the end for the commerce clause arguments? In the future won’t every bill just institute a “tax” instead of a penalty? Overturn Lopez by taxing guns in school zones. Overturn Morrison by imposing a federal tax on domestic violence.
Except for things with impose hardships to basic fundamental rights, is there now nothing the feds can’t control by calling it a tax?
Further, can someone explain to me how it is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not a tax for AIA purposes?
Yes, they did. SCOTUS had a different opinion. How does that make Obama a liar?
Absolutely not. The court’s majority came up with that on their own.
Wait… I’m a hypocrite because I didn’t correct someone’s argument in a thread I wasn’t even posting in?
Edit: I just saw the Moderator’s comment. I meant it to be funny, since it was such a non sequitur. I will back off.
Another gem from further down the ruling:
This is my worry, and much better said than I did.
Once again the federal government fails to limit the power of the federal government. If only the people had recourse in such an instance…
I don’t think there si a requirement that you get medical care, only that you pay for it.
Heck I pay for insurance every year and only see a doctor in about half those years.
[QUOTE=Jim DeMint]
I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder what other laws Jim DeMint thinks the states should nullify.
From the link:
Why do you believe the circumstances will be different this time around?
I explained upthread that Obama may be a liar due to this. Feel free to scroll up a little.
Again: Obama swore up and down it was NOT a tax, and then had his administration argue that the mandate should be allowed to stand because it WAS.
Can I get a cite for him arguing that?
Arguing what?
Why do people say a 5-4 reversal of the individual mandate would have made the public unhappy? It was the most unpopular part of the bill, after all. Wouldn’t it have been good for the court’s image? (If “good” means “making the public happy with its decisions” anyway…)
I have to be missing something here.
Has Obama ever said it was a tax?