How Was the Ruling Constitutional?

As of Tuesday, July 3, 2012

I don’t understand how Chief Justice Roberts can rule that Obamacare is constitutional because it is a tax.

The Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, that: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises … but all Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Section 9 says: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census.”

However, “taxes” must have a very narrow definition in the Constitution, because a constitutional amendment, Amendment XVI, was required to allow the federal government to tax income.

Amendment XVI states: “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.”

If a constitutional amendment is required for the government to tax income, shouldn’t a constitutional amendment be required for a tax based on people refusing to buy a product or service such as health insurance?

Even if Article 9’s definition of “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” was very broad, do the waivers from certain provisions of Obamacare, granted to some companies and unions and the state of Maine, violate the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, provision that “all Taxes … shall be uniform throughout the United States”?

Dick Smetana

Pinehurst

More like this story

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

It does not matter who they ruled (though there ruling was correct wether I like it or not). As Roberts said its not up to the court to correct our bad decisions.

Stop bashing Roberts he is a pretty good justice.

Elect Romney then make sure he does what you want.

OldPilot 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The "tipsy coachman" doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a lower court that reaches the correct result but for the wrong reason so long as there is any basis that would support the judgment (below) in the record. Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla 2002). It would seem this line of thinking allowed the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of the mandate even if the "penalty" was found to be unconstitutional under the power of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce but constitutional as a tax under the power of Congress to levy taxes.

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I find it interesting that a majority of self-described Republicans believe that their taxes will go up because of the finding by the Court that the penalty for failing to get health insurance is a tax. It is possible that their taxes will go up. But the only people who will be "taxed" to the fullest extent the law provides are those who refuse to get health insurance, or what Romeny used to call a penalty when he was Gov. Yet the right wing media assiduously makes no effort to correct this misimpression by their stalwart supporters.

Who says Orwell isn't alive and kicking?

freedomisdaonlyway 10 months, 3 weeks ago

the important part is in the apportionment among the states. it wasn't set up to allow an income tax -- it was set up to allow a tax that was not levied evenly among the states because some are richer than others.

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree Anonymous. Diane

Spocks_Brain 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Ok, so its constitutional, and now the IRS is going to administer this tax, and more than that, will determine if your plan meets the state's definition of health insurance. Its hard to fathom healthcare being administered by the IRS..well, a pox on everyone who voted for this Romulan... Obamacare is a giant suppository

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr. Smetana while I agree that to my mind the decision is a bad one, but it's done, the supreme court has the final say. And while we can roll back the Obamacare legislation next jan. What about the next oppressive government mandate that uses this decision as their presedent. Obamacare is no longer the problem, athe thin edge of the wedge is in and it will be used to force more and more oppressive government upon us.

freedomisdaonlyway 10 months, 3 weeks ago

SCOTUS specifically said that this decision could not be used as precedent in the future. If you're going to attack the decision at least know what it is...

dustyrhoades 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Reading the opinion again, Roberts' logic is a bit bizarre. Under a law the Anti-injunction Act, you can't sue to restrain the collection of a tax. All you can do is sue for a refund. So, if it's a tax, this suit should be barred altogether. But since the ACA calls the mandate a "penalty" and not a tax, Roberts rules that the AIA doesn't apply. But then he finds that it's "within the taxing power" of Congress. So I guess it's it's not a tax, because the Court can hear it, but it is within the Congress's taxing power because it's a a penalty.

Almost as tortured as Romney's logic that the mandate wasn't a tax in Mass, but is in the ACA.