2 ms·
Pages 16-30 covers Robert's decision fo the individual mandate - and it's a good one. Upholding the mandate as a tax under congress's ability to tax, and not u
by padobson 14y ago
Pages 16-30 covers Robert's decision fo the individual mandate - and it's a good one.
Upholding the mandate as a tax under congress's ability to tax, and not upholding it under the commerce clause (and basically saying the government is allowed to force citizens to buy things), is the entire crux of this issue for me.
Roberts should be praised for his prudence and pragmatism, because he was able to uphold the law to please the center left, while alleviating the fears of thinking conservatives like myself.
- law 14y agoI agree with you that Roberts should be praised for his prudence and pragmatism; he held true to his belief that the Justices are umpires. However, there's a huge inconsistency in this ruling: The Anti-Injunction Act says that you can't file a lawsuit challenging a tax until after that tax is paid. Congress argued that they intend to enforce the mandate by attaching a "penalty," rather than a "tax," and as such, the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld the health care act as a tax for purposes of its constitutionality, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Were this construed as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to rule on the issue of the mandate's constitutionality.