How Was the Ruling Constitutional?
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”?
More like this story