Rampart Media
Stay Connected
  • Top Stories
  • Blog
  • About/Contact

The Opinion

6/30/2012

0 Comments

 
By now much has been written and said about the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare but I'm still going to throw my two cents worth out there 

Instead of focusing on this decision from a political perspective, I want to focus on it from a Constitutional perspective. How did the Justices reach the decision that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance was Constitutional?

(WARNING: The following information might cause uncontrollable laughing and/or crying, face-palming, and/or fits of rage)

For the logic and arguments used in the ruling, I turned to the Chicago-Kent University's Supreme Court Media website, Oyez.org. Link here.

The High Court was faced with four questions, but I am only going to focus on two:
  1. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)?  (The Anti-Injunction Act essentially states that someone must first pay a tax in order to challenge it in court. First, the Supremes had to determine whether the penalty for not having health insurance was indeed a tax. If it was, then no one would have standing to challenge it because it has not been assessed yet on anyone.)  
  2. Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance?

Here is where the legal gymnastics begin and the Constitution and common sense end. The first question is answered:

"The justices unanimously agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit. Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act."

Ok. So, the Court unanimously said that the penalty for not complying with the Individual Mandate was not a tax based on Congress "not intending" it to be. Congress could have said that it was a tax, but they did not. Therefore, the Court reasoned, that the Anti-Injunction Act did not come into play because the penalty is not a tax.

Let's stop right here. After reading this, you would think that the second question could now be answered. If Congress did not declare the penalty as a tax, then Congress does not have the authority under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to enact the Individual Mandate. How did the Court respond?

"Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority."

Confused? In a matter of moments, the Court contradicted itself. Now they are claiming that it IS a tax and is justified under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause. Riiiight............ Let's put it in even more simplistic terms so the Democrats can understand:

The Obamacare penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. 
The Obamacare penalty is a tax and is a valid under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause.

I could see Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan making an absurd claim like this. After all, they are radical leftist judicial activists with no respect for our Constitution or rule of law. But John Roberts? What the hell was he thinking? 

The dissenting Justices pointed out the flaw in this thinking.

"As part of a jointly written dissenting opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that because Congress characterized the payment as a penalty, to instead characterize it as a tax would amount to rewriting the Act."

Hmmmmm. Congress did not characterize the payment as a tax. Congress. Did. Not. Characterize. The. Payment. As. A. Tax. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from the same people who said the penalty IS a tax! 

This begs the question: Why didn't the five anti-Constitutionalist Justices declare it a tax it when determining if the Obamacare challengers had standing under the Anti-Injunction Act? The challenge would have ended there and Obamacare would have been upheld. My theory is that they wanted/had to get to the second question. They wanted so badly to set the precedent  that Congress has the authority to tax inactivity,  they were willing to make idiots of themselves to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act had to be gotten around in order to get to what they really wanted to rule on. What better way do this than to simply say  that it's not a tax and therefore the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply?

RIP Constitution 



 
0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Author

    Constitutional conservative and free-market defender blogging about national and Tennessee politics

    Blogroll
    White House Dossier

    Archives

    January 2017
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    2012
    2014 Election
    2014 Election
    9/11
    9-9-9
    Affirmative Action
    Afghanistan
    Alexander
    Alf Landon
    Barack Obama
    Barack Obama
    Bats
    Beer Summit
    Benghazi
    Ben Sasse
    Big Journalism
    Bill Haslam
    Bush
    Candy Bar
    Cbs
    Christmas
    Constitution
    Corker
    Corporations
    Dana Loesch
    Dave Ramsey
    Debt
    Democrats
    Economics
    Election 2012
    Elections
    Epic Fail
    Fair Share
    Fallen Soldier Sunday
    Fdr
    Food Stamps
    Gingrich
    Government Mandate
    Guns
    Harkin
    Harrison Schultz
    Henry Louis Gates
    Herman Cain
    Hypocrisy
    Immigration
    Independence Day
    Irs
    Joe Carr
    Keynes
    Leftists
    Lmao
    Mark Levin
    Media
    Medicaid
    Michelle Obama
    Milton Friedman
    Minimum Wage
    Minimum Wage
    Newsbusters
    Obama
    Obamacare
    Occupy Wall Street
    Ostrich Doctor
    Protest
    Ralph Bristol
    Recall
    Rick Perry
    Robert Capa
    Second Amendment
    Snap
    Social Security
    Stimulus
    Students
    Supreme Court
    Syria
    Taxes
    Ted Cruz
    Tenncare
    Tennessean
    Tennessee
    United Methodist Church
    Wall Street
    War On Terror
    Waverly
    Wi
    World War Ii
    Xerox
    Zero

Thank you for visiting Rampart Media! Please be sure and visit our about us/contact page!
A special thanks to FeedWind for keeping the links up an running.