a friend of mine sent me this comment from another site:
Here's my personal evisceration of the majority opinion. The core of the majority opinion rests on considering the Act legal under the Constitution's taxing authority (Section 8, as limited by Section 9) - all other avenues were abandoned by the majority.
Text in italics are from the USSC's PDF on the decision - bold text is my response.
Page 41: "Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every- one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution."
Yet, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Page 42: "Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one."
Congress has no authority to lay a direct tax unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Argument invalidated.
Page 43: "We have already explained that the shared responsibil- ity payment's practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36."
Nope, as all examples given are ACTIVITIES - not one example of precident was given for laying a direct tax on inaction. This is an unprecidented - and massive - expansion of federal power.
Page 44: "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain in- dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."
A direct tax on inactivity, without proportion to the Census, without precident.
Other notes:
Arguments in favor of Commerce Clause authority rests on Wickard v Filburn, which in this case might as well be Dred Scott v Sanford. So-arguing justices are wrong, plainly.
Page 41: "we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macom- ber, 252 U. S. 189, 218–219 (1920)"
Who owns my body?
Page 41: "The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property."
WHO OWNS MY BODY!? |
