That’s exactly my problem. For all of the limitations and arguments that the commerce clause doesn’t provide for certain laws, do we just say that the penalty for violation goes to the IRS instead of some other government agency, therefore it’s a tax and all is well?
Could the federal government outlaw speeding by stipulating that the fines paid are collected by the IRS?
The federal government can outlaw speeding simply by outlawing speeding. There’s really no question that roads are an instrumentality of interstate commerce and thus their usage is subject to federal regulation.
All right, bad example.
Can the federal government prevent guns in school zones by providing that a tax of $50 million must be paid (collected by the IRS) before possessing a gun in a school zone? And then enact a law that failure to pay the tax is punishable by 10 years imprisonment?
Can the federal government outlaw domestic violence by providing that a domestic violence tax of $100 hillion jillion dollars must be paid before committing domestic violence, and if the tax is not paid, then a federal restraining order can be entered?
The text of the ruling goes through a description of Congressional authority and how federal, but not state, laws must devolve from the federal government’s constitutionally enumerated powers. It notes that those powers have been expanded greatly over the years but the 10th Amendment still acts as a check on Congressional power.
The line of thought is that even if a Proposal X is a good idea and the public would be 100% in favor of it, for it to become a federal law it still must 1) be authorized under some Congressional enumerated power and 2) not prohibited under some other part of the Constitution.
I’m saying that the line of attack about insurance premiums being paid to private companies could be the basis for an entirely separate appeal. From my reading of the judgement so far I think it would not be upheld on Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper grounds. Not sure how it could be upheld under taxing authority.
No one argued that point in these cases as best as I can tell. The SCOTUS is not in the habit of settling arguments not brought before it.
What I am wondering is if there are any taxes that are paid to private companies.
I thought about tolls. Maybe red light traffic cameras? But those are commonly farmed out to private companies to administer but I think it is under contract to a governmental agency at some level.
Again, there is no mandate that you pay anything to a private insurance company. If you don’t pay a private insurance company, then you must pay a tax.
A “No Health Insurance” tax if you will. This was the basis on which it was upheld. You are thinking of the tax as a penalty for not paying money to a private company, something Roberts rejected.
Those are also bad examples because this enactment specifically bars the use of criminal penalties or injunctions to enforce the “tax”.
Mortgage interest paid to private companies is deductible, if that helps.
Was that key to the holding? IOW, is the federal taxing power limited to only those cases where there is not civil, criminal, or injunctive penaties? :dubious: If so, I would like to withhold my FICA taxes, please. 
Same for certain amounts of child care.
I must be missing it. Yes, this particular tax has no tough enforcement provisions. Is there anything in the Court’s opinion today that would indicate that if it DID have tough enforcement provisions that it would not be tempted to call it a tax?
Can Congress then tax you for failure to do something that Congress does not have the authority to mandate that you do?
Congress does not have the authority to require you to wear a green shirt on Tuesdays.
Does Congress have the authority to tax you $695 dollars for failure to wear a green shirt on Tuesdays? What if the tax were $6950? Higher?
If so, where is the limit?
I think the justices gave some guidance as to this “where is the limit” underlying question in the medicaid section of their ruling.
Congress sought to force states to expand medicaid roles under penalty of pulling all of their Medicaid funding. SCOTUS ruled they cannot do this.
Congress has used similar threats of penalty before, such as in encouraging states to set a certain speed limit by threatening to pull highway funding.
If the penalty is so onerous so as to provide no real option then it is unconstitutional. 10% of the state’s budget was so high as to be too onerous.
So if the penalty were raised 10% of an individual’s income would that then be unconstitutionally too onerous? I would say yes.
So how is mandating someone buy an insurance policy that may exceed 10% of his income any less onerous?
It is not the same thing. The federal government requires hospitals to provide life saving health care to people. The federal government does not require stores to provide people with broccoli, apples, cars, etc.
It would be the same thing if a grocery store was legally obligated to provide me with broccoli the same way a hospital is legally obligated to provide me with life saving health care.
In 2008 the average cost of 1 night in the hospital was $1700. So a month long stay would be over $50K. You’re just one accident or one gene away from bankruptcy, which is where the “freeloader” term comes in, because the hospital doesn’t get paid. Perhaps you’re wealthy enough not to worry about it, but surely you can’t expect the average uninsured American to be able pay these sorts of astronomical bills. They had regular meetings at our hospital about people with tabs over one million dollars. Many wealthy people with insurance would have a hard time paying that.
Good example to chew on.
Brings up the whole tax vs. tax deduction, which is largely an exercise in semantics.
I have to pay a tax because I didn’t buy a mortgage from a private bank. Damn you Congress!
That’s exactly what SCOTUS upheld today.
They taxed the hell out of marijuana and machine guns back when they (thought) they had no power to regulate them directly. I don’t see why this is different.
Has the SD v. Dole case (that talks about what you are referring to) been held to apply to individuals?
States aren’t people.
The combination of subsidies and Medicaid exist so that the burden of buying insurance doesn’t become onerous.
Yeah but those were taxes on prohibited items. Not quite the same. They were looking to use tax evasion as a means of pursuing them al la Al Capone. They could just as easily have made fines a part of the criminal penalty.
Ummmm . . . wasn’t that ruled unconstitutional?
Car insurance.