SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Farmboy who wrote (493675)7/1/2012 8:47:00 PM
From: t4texas  Read Replies (1) of 793820
 
it seems to me if roberts wanted to play the commerce clause vs. taxing authority of the constitution, he could have gone with declaring the law unconstitutional for the commerce clause reason And could have sent the whole thing back down to the court of appeals to judge the law under the taxing authority of congress. as many of you know during the oral arguments before the supreme court the solicitor general tried to convince them the law was a tax even though it had been sold in congress and to the population as a mandate under the commerce clause.

yes, i agree the public got a bait and switch from obama's solicitor general. it appears to me four justices justified their opinions on the commerce clause, and four justices wanted to justify their opinions on the taxing authority. i am not sure why roberts came down on the taxing side, but it did give him the opportunity to do a couple of new precedents for the future. it made clear congress/president will not be able to pass all kinds of legislation where passive citizens will have to pay a penalty for not playing ball with congress's law (they can't make people buy an electric car or face a penalty. they cannot make one stop smoking or pay a fine. they cannot make one buy health insurance or pay a fine, etc.). also the robert's court by a 7-2 decision has it now unconstitutional to take federal funds away from states who do not play ball with something the president or congress wants the states to do (the example in this case was taking ALL medicaid funds from a state that does not increase its medicare pool as obamacare says they must. let's use our imagination to think of other cases where the feds might think of taking away All highway funds to get a state to do something it does not want to do, or the feds threatening to take away All federal funds from a state's universities for something the feds think a state should do, or removing some amount of federal funds for some civil rights action the congress or president disagrees with.). the 7-2 decision seems like a big upside for the 10th amendment for the states.

that obamacare is now constitutional as a tax makes reconciliation possible with the senate now able to vote on repealing obamacare law with just 51 votes in favor of repeal with no filibuster possible. of course in the house it needs just a majority also. so the job is to get obama out of office, and this bad law will be off the books.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News