Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (615554)	6/9/2011 2:02:08 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1579790

I think the pro-corporate Robert's court will decided that OF COURSE the government can require citizens to buy insurance products from corporations! What's not to LIKE?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (615554)	6/9/2011 11:00:33 PM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1579790

There are really no limits on the government's power to tax There should be and I hope the court kicks this thing out. except the obvious limits of what the citizenry can afford to pay Not really - it will be bounded more by how much we can borrow.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (615554)	6/11/2011 10:40:10 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579790

There are really no limits on the government's power to tax In addition to the fact that this isn't a tax, there are limits on the federal government's power to tax. “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” - Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution. The power was later expanded by the 16th amendment, but the 16th only covers income taxes. See en.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org Also see -- Why Obamacare mandate penalty can’t be a tax David Kopel • March 15, 2011 12:36 pm My recent op-ed in the Orange County Register explains why. In short, the statute says it’s a “penalty,” not a tax, and United States v. Sonzinsky teaches that courts should not speculate that something which Congress calls a “tax” is really a “penalty”–or vice versa. Besides that, it’s not a consitutional tax because: 1. it’s not a 16th Amendment income tax, because income is an “undeniable accession[] to wealth.” Merely refusing to buy a product is not an “acession to wealth,” but merely a continuation of the status quo. It’s not an excise tax, because such taxes are imposed on an item or activity, and doing nothing is neither. It can’t be a direct tax because it’s not apportioned by population. volokh.com For the moment, let’s put aside the question of whether the Obamacare tax is an Article I tax, or a 16th Amendment income tax. Does Congress have the infinite power to control people’s behavior (such as by ordering them to engage in commercial transactions) via the tax power? I suggest not. When the Bill of Rights was being debated in front of Congress, the skeptical Rep. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts asked if there should also be an enumeration that “declared that a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper.” 1 Annals of Congress 759–60 (Aug. 15, 1789). Sedgewick’s point was that national laws about bedtimes and hat-wearing were self-evidently beyond the authority of Congress. However, if the tax power means that Congress can order citizens to buy something they don’t want to buy, why does Congress not have the power to assess taxes on people who get too little sleep, or too much sleep, and thereby harm their own health and the public fisc? Or who wear hats so little that they increase their risk of skin cancer? Or who wear hats so often that they dangerously reduce their levels of vitamin D? In Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court declared that it would not inquire into hidden regulatory motives that might have motivated a tax. But in Sonzinsky, the underlying activity (running a for-profit commercial business selling machine guns) was unquestionably within the scope of commercial activities that might be subject to an excise tax. In contrast, not buying health insurance is not in its nature a commercial taxable activity. Neither is wearing a hat, or getting up when you please, or going to bed when you think it proper. Sonzinsky is deferential to congressional motives, but it does nothing to support the claim that non-commercial activity may be taxed. Construing the tax power as less than infinite–as not encompassing the power to tax bedtimes or the decision not purchase a product–is strongly supported by the Ninth Amendment. This is so whether one agrees with Randy Barnett’s view of the Ninth Amendment (as an enforceable guarantee of natural rights) or with Kurt Lash’s (as a rule that enumerated powers should be narrowly construed so as not to violate natural rights, including the right of self-government in the states). volokh.com