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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (23848)	6/28/2012 4:41:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Well you're welcome to disagree with virtually every constitutional scholar except that isn't what I was doing And its not just legal scholars and commentators, none of the lower courts accepted the tax argument, and as you point out, only Roberts did in this decision. If one of the appeals courts had accepted the tax argument, then there would have been a lot more focus on it, and I'm sure the issue I point out would have been raised on the USSC level, but I don't think it was because almost no one (even those expecting the decision to be upheld) expected it to be on the tax issue once all the lower courts firmly rejected that argument. That having been said, I'd rather it be decided this way then based on "the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited power". Its only a very small stretch to consider it a tax, so that point doesn't bother me. Its just that its a much larger stretch to consider it a tax that is allowed under the US constitution.