4 ms·
I'm confused. Is this ruling itself valid? SCOTUS has already ruled twice that ACA, including the individual mandate, is constitutional.
by jameskilton 8y ago
I'm confused. Is this ruling itself valid? SCOTUS has already ruled twice that ACA, including the individual mandate, is constitutional.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoWhen congress changed the penalty for not having insurance from N > $0 to $0, they invalidated Roberts' opinion that the ACA was constitutional because its penalty could be passed off as a tax. What Trump is claiming is that they made the ACA unconstitutional by eliminating the penalty, and hence it is no longer constitutional. I'm not sure why the ACA would be struck down as opposed to the tax cut bill that made it unconstitutional, but IANAL.
- throwaway-86-45 8y agoGenuine curiosity here: Why is it that it's the ACA that becomes unconstitutional here and not the tax cut bill? If Trump is signing bills that make other laws unconstitutional is this a violation of his oath to protect the constitution?
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoThere must be precedent on this, but drafting unconstitutional bills is not itself unconstitutional, the bills are just invalidated by the courts. Congress is the one responsible for all of this. Trump can only play an ancillary role.
- masonic 8y agoNot completely. That ruling affirmed that ACA is a tax and therefore it couldn't be challenged at that point due to preemption (you can't contest a tax that hasn't been collected yet).