Remarkably, the Second Amendment ideologues claim they’re the same people. At any rate, if that’s the best argument you have for denying that the government has *always *had, and has often used, the power that so upsets the regressives these days, then the case is made.
Constitutionally it is. If it is not a tax, it is unconstitutional per the majority. I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to draw. SCOTUS said that it’s reasonable to interpret this as a tax, and in doing so, it is constitutional, since…
The only way this passes the constitutional gauntlet is if they deem it a tax, something the government requested if its first arguments failed (they did). The government has requested (if its primary arguments are rejected) that SCOTUS consider this the imposition of a tax. The majority has done so, and explicitly pointed out that if it is anything other than a tax, it is unconstitutional–i.e., “It can be read as a tax, so we do so. It is a tax and therefore constitutional.” The only way this can be deemed to fall within Congress’s taxing authority is if it’s a tax. I don’t see any meaningful way to avoid concluding, “this is a tax” that’s not a semantic quibble.
I don’t think I can say it much more plainly. I could try this way: the Court said the penalty is similar enough to a tax in particular ways (its application, its collection, etc.) that it can be considered a tax for Constitutional purposes, and the act is Constitutional on that basis. I think if you say “the Court ruled it’s a tax,” that’s likely to lead to the same “the Court turned the penalty into a tax!” misunderstandings we’re already seeing in this thread.
I agree that’s a misunderstanding. I would say that the court has asserted, “This was always a tax, or at least could reasonably be interpreted as one, which amounts to the same thing. Therefore we will accommodate your request to consider this an imposition of a tax. It’s a tax.”
I disagree with their logic (though I don’t think it’s ridiculous) so I might say they did “rewrite” the law a bit to shoehorn it into a constitutionally acceptable form. But the majority opinion (which is the one that counts) would logically assert, “This is what it was when it was signed into law. SCOTUS didn’t change it into a anything it wasn’t when it went into effect.” Is that your point? I would say they did recognize it as a tax, and did not merely say it might be one based on similarities, and I’m not sure we’re on the same page on that. I believe their logic is, “If this can be interpreted as a tax to render this constitutional, and that’s reasonable, then we must. It is a tax.”
I don’t think they said that.
Or that. Saying something it can be viewed as a tax for purposes of Constitutionality is not the same as saying it is a tax.
That was one of the points I made in response to the claim that the Court turned the penalty into a tax, yes. Viewing something through a particular lens for the purposes of argument is not the same as changing it from one thing into another.
I’m not sure we’re far apart, so I won’t keep trying. But I do disagree. They have not just conducted a thought experiment. They have established, now and for years to come, that such a scenario is indeed a tax, and no one need bother them on a similar matter. For all practical purposes, it’s a tax until some other decision changes it, whatever anyone wants to call it.
The tax collectors are going to collect a tax from the people who don’t buy healthcare insurance.
The government argued that this was a tax when it filed the case with the SCOTUS.
Not sure which one of all these threads has mentioned this (if any), but several governors are making noises that they won’t allow the ACA to be implemented in their states-most notably mine ([del]Skeletor[/del] Rick Scott). Obvious question is whether they have any legal standing at all to do so.
I don’t have a cite, but I believe I heard that if the states don’t do it, the Federal Govt. will set up exchanges for them starting in January.
The Supreme Court can’t have it both ways. If it was a tax, then they shouldn’t have heard the case in the first place based on the Anti-Injunction Act. Clearly, the Supreme Court didn’t see it as a tax and that’s why they tried it. It’s a penalty. Everyone knows that it’s a penalty.
Eh, my history is a bit off, but doesn’t nullification have a shitty (ie it has never ever been successful) track record in this country?
The idea is that it is a “tax” in one sense and is not a “tax” in another.
It is not a tax in the sense called on in the anti-injunction act,
It is a tax in the sense called on in the taxation clause of the constitution.
According to the SCOTUS, these are two different senses of the word “tax,” with two diferent meanings.
Right. Cite.
IOW, those govs are just posturing. And, it might even be a step toward single-payer, if the exchange system starts at least partially federalized already.
Actually, the Supreme Court can have it both ways, mainly because of the wording of the AIA.
[QUOTE=Chief Justice Roberts]
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11– 15.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chief Justice Roberts]
- 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 “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application 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 substance 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.
[/QUOTE]
I think you and others here are confused about what the role of the Supreme Court is. They do not determine if something is or is not a tax, devoid of all context. Rather, they answer subtler questions of whether it might be reasonably considered to act like a tax for certain matters of law.
Roberts’ ruling actually walks a fine line on the tax issue: In the case of the Anti-Injunction Act, it says that act requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what is a tax and hence that it should not be considered as a tax in that context since it was not explicitly stated as such in the act.
In the case of the constitutionality of the mandate, it argues for the Court taking a deferential approach to the legislative branch in deeming a law to be unconstitutional. It basically says, “If it has enough of the qualities to make it sort of tax-like in its application, then we ought to deferentially allow the legislature to enact such a provision under its authority to levy taxes.” That may sound a lot like saying it is a tax, but it is not in fact the same thing as saying that it is a tax.
The question of whether it is a tax is a contextual question. This seems to be hard for people who have a very two-valued orientation (something is either black or white) to grasp.
You do understand how these “subtler questions” can appear to the ignorant masses as simple weaseling, don’t you?
Just to provide a little textual support from what I am saying, here is a part of Roberts’ opinion (with bolding to the most relevant sentence added by me):
And, yes, ElvisL1ves, I do see how it can appear that way to such people. And, frankly, even I will admit that Obama’s desire to characterize it as a penalty and not a tax is driven by the political considerations that make “tax” a 4-letter word in this country. In a perfect world, President Jshore would say, “If you want to consider this as a tax on people who are trying to freeload on the rest of us, then go ahead.” However, in the real world, distinguishing it from evil taxes is a necessary political maneuver.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I hope you can agree that in light of what I quoted from Roberts above, it is now clear that your statement here is incorrect. Roberts has clearly not said that the most natural interpretation is that it is a tax; in fact, he has explicitly pointed out that he doesn’t need to establish that. He has said only that this is a “fairly possible” interpretation and that this is all one needs to establish to say that it is constitutionally allowable. There is no reason that the Supreme Court needs to rule on whether that is the best interpretation of the mandate and penalty but merely that it is a possible interpretation that one can make reasonable arguments to support.
I’m not confused at all, and I understand that the majority is discussing the matter in a constitutional context. But while they are constructing their logic (within that context) by examining if the legislation resembles a tax, they arrive at a conclusion much firmer–i.e., because it does resemble a tax, it IS one, and a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. Any other conclusion and the decision goes the other way. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, within the context that matters to them, this is a tax.
That doesn’t mean AIA doesn’t consider it something different. It means AIA ultimately has no bearing on the practical operation of this law (other than permitting the matter to be considered).
So my point is that while it is valid to dismiss those who said, “SCOTUS turned this into a tax,” it is likewise valid (IMO) to identify those who say, “SCOTUS didn’t really say it’s a tax” as advancing a quibble. The highest court in our land has deemed this a tax for constitutional purposes. Congress would not otherwise be able to exercise its authority. SCOTUS didn’t say, “Since it resembles a tax, we must treat it as such, even allowing for the fact that it might not be.” They said, “Because it resembles a tax, we must consider it one. It’s a tax.”
I detect a scramble to frame this as something other than a tax because that’s such a toxic campaign matter. And now I am off for a flight to Jamaica, so I won’t be able to respond if in fact I’m missing some key point (I don’t think I am).
Hey, just noticed that we can do this too:
“I think you and others here are confused about what the role of the Supreme Court is. They do not determine if a corporation is a person, devoid of all context. Rather, they answer subtler questions of whether it might be reasonably considered to act like a person for certain matters of law.”