Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
I haven't read the opinion yet, but summary from SCOTUSBlog is that the mandate has been upheld under Congress's power to impose taxes for the "general welfare." Chief Justice Roberts joins the majority opinion. The entire statute, therefore, is upheld.
I'll have much more to say about this shortly, but assuming the initial summary is correct, this is a travesty. The "general welfare" clause adds no additional powers to the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8. It is only since the New Deal case of Helvering, 150 years after the ratification of the Constitution, that the Court suddenly "discovered" an omnibus "general welfare" power. This decision destroys any remaining limits on that power.
SCOTUSBlog says that Roberts' vote "saved the ACA." If that's true, it's a major indictment of Roberts' jurisprudence.
The only non-travesty aspect, so far, is that the decision apparently limits the federal government's ability to coerce the states via Medicaid funding. That would be the first time SCOTUS ever actually limited a conditional grant program. But small consolation there.
- Comment (133)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
IF you have an American flag flying for July 4, now is the time to lower it to half-staff. America R.I.P 1776 - 2012.
Jul '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Ronaldus Maximus: What am I missing. Please remember that day one of oral arguments dealt with whether ObamaCare was a tax or penalty. At issue was the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 which prohibits people from suing the government for a tax that hasn’t yet gone into effect. If that's the case, why wasn't the entire case thrown out and no judgement rendered on any part of the case until 2014???
A reminder of the mental and linguistic gymnastics as to whether the act is a tax or mandate can be read here.
This is judicial Animal Farm. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Cylon
To stop them from doing unconstitutionalthings. Robert's point is that there are plenty of stupid things a government can do that aren't prohibited by the constitution. Politics is meant to deal with the doing of stupid things not prohibited by the constitution. · 48 minutes ago
Its not unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy something?
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Maybe tomorrow I'll calm down, but today, I am in full rant mode.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:28pmMay '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Valin
Its not unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy something? · 21 minutes ago
You don't have to buy it.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:47pmJun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862
Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold Obamacare hoping that the issue will drive voters to dump President Obama in favor of Mitt Romney who has vowed to kill the Affordable Care Act.
After the decision, the Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform pushed through by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
RGA Chairman Bob McDonnell said, "Today's ruling crystallizes all that's at stake in November's election. The only way to stop Barack Obama's budget-busting health care takeover is by electing a new president. Barack Obama's health care takeover encapsulates his presidency: Obamacare increases taxes, grows the size of government and puts bureaucrats over patients while doing nothing to improve the economy."
(Snip)
Sep '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Ronaldus Maximus: What am I missing. Please remember that day one of oral arguments dealt with whether ObamaCare was a tax or penalty. At issue was the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 which prohibits people from suing the government for a tax that hasn’t yet gone into effect. If that's the case, why wasn't the entire case thrown out and no judgement rendered on any part of the case until 2014???
Edited 15 minutes ago
Attempting to answer my own question: here is the explanation according to Ed Whelen at NRO's Bench Memo's:
Forgive me if I'm still skeptical. Then again, I'm still having trouble with those penumbras and emanations.....
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Valin
Cylon
To stop them from doing unconstitutionalthings. Robert's point is that there are plenty of stupid things a government can do that aren't prohibited by the constitution. Politics is meant to deal with the doing of stupid things not prohibited by the constitution. · 48 minutes ago
Its not unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy something? · 7 minutes ago
Roberts says everyone gets a choice: either buy insurance (which most of us do as a matter of prudence anyway) or pay a tax to help offset the costs you will inevitably incur by not having insurance. My biggest confusion is connecting the tax received to the actual payment for healthcare after it hits the treasury. Helvering v Davis said that no single cent in the treasury is earmarked for anything and congress can spend it in any damned fool way it sees fit.
May '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Good grief, everyone put down the hemlock and stop the mass surrender. We won two giant much needed rules, as I explain here.
Santa didn't come and mow the lawn for us. So we have to do it ourselves- politically- the way we should have a long time ago.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
The King Prawn
Valin
Cylon
Its not unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy something? · 7 minutes ago
Roberts says everyone gets a choice: either buy insurance (which most of us do as a matter of prudence anyway) or pay a tax to help offset the costs you will inevitably incur by not having insurance. My biggest confusion is connecting the tax received to the actual payment for healthcare after it hits the treasury. Helvering v Davis said that no single cent in the treasury is earmarked for anything and congress can spend it in any damned fool way it sees fit. · 2 minutes ago
Wow...That's some choice. I can give my money to a "private" government approved insurance company, or give it to the IRS.
Well as long as I have a choice.
/sarcasm
Aug '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Silver Lining: From now on, any time a politician tries to claim that a proposed fee, penalty, fine, or mandate isn't a "tax", conservatives have a Supreme Court decision that proves the politician is lying.
Politicians can no longer hide behind the "not-really-a-tax" argument when they want to impose costs on individuals.
Aug '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Valin
Cylon
To stop them from doing unconstitutionalthings. Robert's point is that there are plenty of stupid things a government can do that aren't prohibited by the constitution. Politics is meant to deal with the doing of stupid things not prohibited by the constitution.
Its not unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy something?
The reasoning, as far as I see it, goes like this: The federal government isn't forcing you to buy something. You are free not to buy health insurance, if you don't want to. You aren't "punished" for not buying health insurance. Instead, everybody that does buy health insurance is exempted from paying the Obama Health Tax.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Misthiocracy: Silver Lining: From now on, any time a politician tries to claim that a proposed fee, penalty, fine, or mandate isn't a "tax", conservatives have a Supreme Court decision that proves the politician is lying.
Politicians can no longer hide behind the "not-really-a-tax" argument when they want to impose costs on individuals. · 3 minutes ago
You have a much higher opinion of politicians than I.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Valin
The King Prawn
Roberts says everyone gets a choice: either buy insurance (which most of us do as a matter of prudence anyway) or pay a tax to help offset the costs you will inevitably incur by not having insurance. My biggest confusion is connecting the tax received to the actual payment for healthcare after it hits the treasury. Helvering v Davis said that no single cent in the treasury is earmarked for anything and congress can spend it in any damned fool way it sees fit. · 2 minutes ago
Wow...That's some choice. I can give my money to a "private" government approved insurance company, or give it to the IRS.
Well as long as I have a choice.
/sarcasm · 11 minutes ago
I feel your pain. But, now the choice is extremely clear, and maybe, just maybe, the people will be susceptible to the argument that government is a dangerous weapon that should only be entrusted to those least likely to point it directly in their faces.
/optimism (that took a lot out of me...)
Jun '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Oh, it's all very clever a la Rove, but I fear it will turn about as well as Rove's permanent Republican majority.
Mel Foil
It's certainly not going to help Obama get elected. In fact, in electoral terms, it would've been worse if the Court threw the whole thing out, and thereby took it off the table, politically. As it is now, we'll have about 1000 video clips of Democrats saying, "this is not a tax." · 2 hours ago
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
The Invisible Hand also decides it's a tax, which answers my previous question: "Healthcare ruling sparks broad stock sell-off"
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
The King Prawn
Valin
Wow...That's some choice. I can give my money to a "private" government approved insurance company, or give it to the IRS.
Well as long as I have a choice.
/sarcasm · 11 minutes ago
I feel your pain. But, now the choice is extremely clear, and maybe, just maybe, the people will be susceptible to the argument that government is a dangerous weapon that should only be entrusted to those least likely to point it directly in their faces.
/optimism (that took a lot out of me...) · 9 minutes ago
From your lips to Gods ear.
I really try to stay optimistic, some days its easier than others.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Feel The Love
http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-nigga-uncle-tom/
AH! I love the new tone of civility!
Jun '11
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Boy, I hope folks aren't succumbing to despair. Speaking for myself, I now know what Bruce Banner feels like the microsecond before he turns into The Hulk.
While I believe this ruling lays landmines optimists don't appreciate now, it will at least clarify the choices we have November.
Duane Oyen: Good grief, everyone put down the hemlock and stop the mass surrender. We won two giant much needed rules, as I explain here.
Santa didn't come and mow the lawn for us. So we have to do it ourselves- politically- the way we should have a long time ago. · 26 minutes ago
Aug '10
Re: Breaking: The Individual Mandate Survives
Does this mean Grover Norquist has to change the wording on the No Tax Increase pledge?
After all, any Republican that votes to increase the fine for committing any offense is actually voting for a tax increase, according to the Supreme Court.
Increase the fine for fraud? That's a tax increase.
Lower the speed limit? That's a tax increase.
Heck, increasing the fine for tax evasion is a tax increase!