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: i-node who wrote (23960)	7/1/2012 5:00:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

It seems to me that Roberts felt there would be too much political fallout from stroking down the law (I'm not exactly sure why as the law isn't that popular), and so looked for any tortured stretch of a justification to not do it without making the commerce power nearly unlimited. I can see the penalty as a tax, that's not too much of a stretch, but its obviously an unconstitutional tax, since it isn't apportioned among the states, it isn't an excise tax, and it isn't an income tax, which are the only forms of taxes that the feds are constitutionally allows to enact and enforce. It isn't the Court's role to tell the Congress how to run the government. Its not the court's role to micromanage legislative or executive action, or to set policy. Its is their job to make sure the other branches live within the limits of their powers, and it fell down on its job here.