Posted by Kromey at 1:38pm Jun 28 '12I suspect you're happy with the ruling against a Commerce Clause justification?
I am indeed happy with that part -- been a long time since any real constraints have been levied against the laughably over-broad interpretations made of that clause over the last century or so.
The ruling states that the so-called mandate is a tax, and the government has the power to levy a tax.
This is a punitive tax levied against anyone who doesn't follow the mandate. By the "logic" being put forward here, this grants the feds the authority to mandate anything they want to just so long as they call it a "tax".
Of course, anyone with a bit of sense realizes that money taken for not following a law is a fine, not a tax, and even the government's own arguments have called it a fine!
I am indeed happy with that part -- been a long time since any real constraints have been levied against the laughably over-broad interpretations made of that clause over the last century or so.
The ruling states that the so-called mandate is a tax, and the government has the power to levy a tax.
This is a punitive tax levied against anyone who doesn't follow the mandate. By the "logic" being put forward here, this grants the feds the authority to mandate anything they want to just so long as they call it a "tax".
Of course, anyone with a bit of sense realizes that money taken for not following a law is a fine, not a tax, and even the government's own arguments have called it a fine!
Re: Not quite - Kromey