Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ?penalty,? not a ?tax.? But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12?13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress?s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress?s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress?s constitutional power to tax.
...
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress?s power to tax.In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets?for which the licensee had to pay a fee?could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power.

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the ?prohibitory? financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation?except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See ?5000A(g)(2).

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.