So one argument I heard, on this ACA verdict, was that the Supreme Court did not actually vote on the constitutionality of the law itself. They simply declared that the government cannot force people to buy things BUT the government CAN tax people and they can assess penalties IF they are actually taxes.
So the view is that the Government can tax period
They did not vote on the ACA law as a constitutional entity except for the point that the federal government cannot take away the Medicare assistance from states that decide they do not want to participate.
This means the declaration by Robert’s is gauged to remove the Supreme Court from the political machinations and not giving any power to either side for the upcoming elections. The problem with that view is that the Democrats are claiming that they have won because this means the law is constitutional.
If this was a commerce clause issue then this law would be unconstitutional, but the government can tax. So what we will all have to do is look very closely at what the Court has really said… in other words it is time to really start parsing the WAY they said it because of this.
You don’t HAVE to buy health care, if you choose to not buy it then you will have to pay a higher tax. If you DO choose to buy it then your taxes go down.
Someone has made the point that this was taxation without representation. Everyone wants to say no it isn’t, your congress passed this they are your representatives thus it is NOT taxation without representation, but the guy was insistent and he said, “NO wait think about this. It was passed as a bill with maybe a penalty or mandate as part of the commerce clause, but they insisted THIS IS NOT A TAX. So if they are now calling it a tax it is a tax placed on the voters WITHOUT the representatives getting the chance to vote on it AS A TAX.”
He may have a point.
I will have to think about it
No comments:
Post a Comment