Court case is over, so now White House is telling us it's a penalty again, not a tax

[Little-Acorn]

When trying to pass Obamacare in 2009 and 2010, President Obama swore up and down the "penalty" for not signing up, wasn't a tax. Many Democrats told him it would never be passed, if there were any such taxes in it. So Obama told them it was only a penalty. It wasn't a tax. They passed it.

Then when it came up before the Supreme Court, the Justices pointed out that a penalty, as it was described in the text of the law itself, could not possibly pass constitutional muster. So Obama's lawyers simply changed their story: Since the votes had already been tallied, now it was a tax, not a penalty. On that basis, the Supreme Court OK'ed it, since it was (now) a tax.

Today, as people are starting to realize they had been lied to, and that Obamacare was in fact one of the largest tax increases in country had ever seen, Obama's spokesmen are changing their story yet again: Now it's a penalty again, not a tax. It's a penalty. A Penalty. Not a tax. For today, anyway. Got it?

Democrats are apparently confident that the American people are too stupid to notice them constantly changing their story, to whatever is convenient for the moment.

As a famous former dictator once said, "The truth? Truth is whatever serves the Soviet Union!"

On Nov. 5th, will Americans remember that it's only constitutional if it's a tax?

A BIG tax?

Or will they justify the Democrats' opinion of them as a bunch of stupid bumpkins?

---------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/

White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax'

Published June 29, 2012
FoxNews.com

First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it's a penalty again.

The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul's most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court's argument -- even though that argument alone spared President Obama's law.

The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress' authority to tax.

Ergo, the fine is officially a "tax" in the eyes of the court. The law stands.

But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a "penalty."

Calling it a "tax" causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009.

Carney went on to say Friday that the "penalty" will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.

Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. "Call it what you want," he said.

But describing the fine as a "penalty" helps fight Republican claims that the court ruling confirms the Obama administration raised taxes with its health care law.

Republicans threatened to use that argument against the president and Democrats in the 2012 election.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Fox News the ruling means the law becomes a "middle-class tax increase." He said the IRS will "come after" people who don't pay.

[ConHog]

Penalty vs tax - does it really matter at this point? Call it a banana.........

[taft2012]

I was watching a soccer match last week that was decided by a tax kick.

[Kathianne]

Penalty vs tax - does it really matter at this point? Call it a banana.........

If it had been called a tax, it wouldn't have passed. For whatever reason, Roberts chose to call it a tax, creating the 'loophole' to make it constitutional, as he reasoned it didn't work under either the Commerce or Necessary & Proper clauses.

[CockySOB]

If it had been called a tax, it wouldn't have passed. For whatever reason, Roberts chose to call it a tax, creating the 'loophole' to make it constitutional, as he reasoned it didn't work under either the Commerce or Necessary & Proper clauses.

Not just reasoned, but ruled that the individual mandate would be unconstitutional under either the Commerce or the Necessary & Proper Clauses. Chief Justice Roberts specifically stated in the opinion of the court that he couldn't even consider applying the Taxing Clause unless the mandate had been found to be outside the scope of the other two clauses. I'm just making sure you understand that this was part of the ruling which seemed to sneak by most people initially. Right now I know a lot of legal academics and constitutional scholars on the left who are bemoaning the demise of the foundation of much of the New Deal legislation and its associated court rulings which expanded federal authority immensely.

Back to the opinion of the court. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling, there was a path which had to be followed to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate and its associated penalty. The first step involved determining applicability of the Commerce Clause. If the Commerce Clause did not provide the authority for the mandate, the court had to look to the Necessary & Proper Clause for authority. While the mandate might be necessary in order to implement the PPACA, it was not proper because it attempted to create a new power for Congress - the ability to regulate inactivity. As such, the mandate failed constitutional muster under the Necessary & Proper Clause as well. The last effort for the court to find the law constitutional (which is standard practice BTW) was to see if the individual mandate penalty could fit under the Congressional authority to levy taxes via the Taxing Clause, which the court ruled it did in the end.

I hope this clarifies the fact that this wasn't just a ruling that the individual mandate was constitutional, but that it is only constitutional under the limitations of the Taxing Clause and not under the more widely used Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses.

Please pardon me if I rambled on, second glass of wine after a looooong day.

[Kathianne]

Not just reasoned, but ruled that the individual mandate would be unconstitutional under either the Commerce or the Necessary & Proper Clauses. Chief Justice Roberts specifically stated in the opinion of the court that he couldn't even consider applying the Taxing Clause unless the mandate had been found to be outside the scope of the other two clauses. I'm just making sure you understand that this was part of the ruling which seemed to sneak by most people initially. Right now I know a lot of legal academics and constitutional scholars on the left who are bemoaning the demise of the foundation of much of the New Deal legislation and its associated court rulings which expanded federal authority immensely.

Back to the opinion of the court. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling, there was a path which had to be followed to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate and its associated penalty. The first step involved determining applicability of the Commerce Clause. If the Commerce Clause did not provide the authority for the mandate, the court had to look to the Necessary & Proper Clause for authority. While the mandate might be necessary in order to implement the PPACA, it was not proper because it attempted to create a new power for Congress - the ability to regulate inactivity. As such, the mandate failed constitutional muster under the Necessary & Proper Clause as well. The last effort for the court to find the law constitutional (which is standard practice BTW) was to see if the individual mandate penalty could fit under the Congressional authority to levy taxes via the Taxing Clause, which the court ruled it did in the end.

I hope this clarifies the fact that this wasn't just a ruling that the individual mandate was constitutional, but that it is only constitutional under the limitations of the Taxing Clause and not under the more widely used Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses.

Please pardon me if I rambled on, second glass of wine after a looooong day.

Nope, you just used more words to second what I said. No need for a pardon.

[logroller]

Here's what Romney told an audience at Claremont McKenna College in April of 2010:

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

[fj1200]

Penalty vs tax - does it really matter at this point? Call it a banana.........

No, they are using their taxing power to enforce a penalty.


If it had been called a tax, it wouldn't have passed. For whatever reason, Roberts chose to call it a tax, creating the 'loophole' to make it constitutional, as he reasoned it didn't work under either the Commerce or Necessary & Proper clauses.

That's a legislative argument not a judicial one. I don't think the Taxing Clause is a "loophole."


Back to the opinion of the court. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling, there was a path which had to be followed to determine the constitutionality of the individual mandate and its associated penalty. The first step involved determining applicability of the Commerce Clause. If the Commerce Clause did not provide the authority for the mandate, the court had to look to the Necessary & Proper Clause for authority. While the mandate might be necessary in order to implement the PPACA, it was not proper because it attempted to create a new power for Congress - the ability to regulate inactivity. As such, the mandate failed constitutional muster under the Necessary & Proper Clause as well. The last effort for the court to find the law constitutional (which is standard practice BTW) was to see if the individual mandate penalty could fit under the Congressional authority to levy taxes via the Taxing Clause, which the court ruled it did in the end.

And was the decision wrong?


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#cite_note-2)and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;