That’s not right either. They did strike down part of the Medicaid expansion provisions.
Now will there be any movement from those 26 states to propose a Constitutional Amendment that would in effect eliminate the ACA or are they just happy the medicaid provision is tossed?
Some poor intern at CNN is probably put on the rack right now.
But hurray. The ups and downs to getting the ACA into law has been incredible. Someones going to write a hell of a book about it at some point.
Heh, once again upstart media (SCOTUSBlog in this case) gets the story faster, and more accurate, than the big guys.
No need for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn ACA. It is just a law. Can be overturned with a law.
Piece of cake, right?
I wonder how soon we should expect calls for the impeachment of Roberts from Tea Party types.
It’s understandable, because apparently the opinion pretty clearly says that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Only then does it say that there are 5 votes upholding it under the taxing power.
The lesson, as that cramming college student knows, is read the whole Cliff’s Notes before taking the quiz.
LAW UPHELD!! Victory for the American people. All of those years at Harvard Univ. sure came in handy.
This is simply brilliant.
I’ll take a bow:
[QUOTE=me]
Nonetheless, l’ll be a pessimist and say upheld, 5-4: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Roberts. Roberts’ opinion will provide the limiting principle the government’s case failed to; essentially a “here and no further” passage.
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly a “limiting principle,” but he upheld on the basis of an argument the government did not make.
What do I win? 
But the THREAT of an amendment can convince Congress (read the 40 or more Dems in the Senate) to overturn a law, especially if it limits the Congress power to tax which is the form I think would address the penalty=tax ruling of today.
Italics, mine.
This is the most accurate analogy in the entire history of ever.
So if it is just a tax then how did the SCOTUS justify that it was ripe for a ruling? I thought they cannot rule on validity of a tax until it has been paid and challenged?
Wait a sec, does that mean that there could be a second challenge that this is actually NOT a tax on income but behavior and therefore the [del]fines[/del] taxes are unconstitutional?
[QUOTE=16th Amendment]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
[/QUOTE]
A tax one doesn’t have to pay. If I don’t pay it, what happens?
Eh? The government’s primary argument was that it could do this under the commerce power. Its second argument was that it could do this under the taxing and spending power (see Section II starting on p. 69).
[QUOTE=Iggy]
Wait a sec, does that mean that there could be a second challenge that this is actually NOT a tax on income but behavior and therefore the fines taxes are unconstitutional?
[/QUOTE]
Congress’ taxing power is not solely authorized by the 16th amendment. The relevant power here is the Article I taxing power.
Seems profoundly unlikely, given similar tax exemptions that have been allowed; I essentially pay taxes on my lack of charitable giving, for instance.
Likewise, flood insurance.
It wasn’t clear whether this was a tax or an increase in Congressional power under the commerce clause. Now we know. It’s a tax.