SCOTUS upholds Affordable Care Act

[mookiemookie]

They struck down the Stolen Valor Act.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, that's one of those laws that feels right but reads wrong. I can see how it didn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, the courts opinion seems to leave plenty of room to relegislate, though.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Yeah, that's one of those laws that feels right but reads wrong. I can see how it didn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, the courts opinion seems to leave plenty of room to relegislate, though.

There is plenty of room now to call anything a "tax" and then mandate it under the premise it is a tax.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1z6ESIZS3

From here on out whatever the government wants from the people it will be labelled as a tax.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

There is plenty of room now to call anything a "tax" and then mandate it under the premise it is a tax.

I was talking about the Stolen Valor Act

I see what you mean about the tax clause setting a rather wide precedent. However, I think the only reason that this was argued under the Commerce Clause and not the taxing power is because all involved knew that passing the Act and selling it to the people would have been impossible had it been classified as a tax.

[TFatseas]

The Government argues to the Court that it is not a tax and SCOTUS upholds it because it IS a tax?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by TFatseas

The Government argues to the Court that it is not a tax and SCOTUS upholds it because it IS a tax?

The Solicitor General did advance the tax argument. Admittedly it was not the administrations main argument.



AVG- I don't think anyone was hoodwinked in this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf

Opinion is linked above. The taxing element is around page 32 onwards

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The Solicitor General did advance the tax argument. Admittedly it was not the administrations main argument.



AVG- I don't think anyone was hoodwinked in this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf

Opinion is linked above. The taxing element is around page 32 onwards

Either way today's decision has opened a floodgate. From here on out any new program will be mandated and funded by taxes. It is not a commerce type transaction then.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I was talking about the Stolen Valor Act

I see what you mean about the tax clause setting a rather wide precedent. However, I think the only reason that this was argued under the Commerce Clause and not the taxing power is because all involved knew that passing the Act and selling it to the people would have been impossible had it been classified as a tax.

In short..we were hoodwinked. Welcome to the USA