Recent Supreme Court Activity
The Supreme Court today upheld nearly all of Obamacare. Taken with their recent decision in the Arizona case, this shows a trend of allowing federal power to expand while limiting the power of states. I'm not happy about that.
I am probably trying too hard to give credit where credit is due, but I'm glad that John Roberts didn't use the interstate commerce clause to justify the individual mandate. He might as well have though, because his justification of it as a tax sets just as much bad precedent.
I am not sure what product the federal government could not force people to buy now. A lot of libertarians give broccoli as an example. I don't think that will happen. But there is a movement now to make sure everybody goes to college. Why could the government not make everybody enroll in an approved college or university? Or make parents pay their children's tuition? One could argue that such a mandate is for the common good because a well-educated citizenry is desirable.
There are really severe flaws in the tax argument. It's nothing but legal prestidigitation. melvin_udall points out in an entry today that Obama once insisted the mandate was not a tax. I wonder what he would say now.
The President is not the only one trying to have it both ways. The Supreme Court is too. A blog post by Michael S. Rozeff at lewrockwell.com points out
The Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution).
The only good thing about today's ruling is that discussion of it has taken over the internet, completely shutting out those Tau Day smart alecks.
I am probably too grateful for small favors.
For anyone interested here's a link to the entire decision (193 pages long):
Full text of Obamacare decision
I am probably trying too hard to give credit where credit is due, but I'm glad that John Roberts didn't use the interstate commerce clause to justify the individual mandate. He might as well have though, because his justification of it as a tax sets just as much bad precedent.
I am not sure what product the federal government could not force people to buy now. A lot of libertarians give broccoli as an example. I don't think that will happen. But there is a movement now to make sure everybody goes to college. Why could the government not make everybody enroll in an approved college or university? Or make parents pay their children's tuition? One could argue that such a mandate is for the common good because a well-educated citizenry is desirable.
There are really severe flaws in the tax argument. It's nothing but legal prestidigitation. melvin_udall points out in an entry today that Obama once insisted the mandate was not a tax. I wonder what he would say now.
The President is not the only one trying to have it both ways. The Supreme Court is too. A blog post by Michael S. Rozeff at lewrockwell.com points out
The Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution).
The only good thing about today's ruling is that discussion of it has taken over the internet, completely shutting out those Tau Day smart alecks.
I am probably too grateful for small favors.
For anyone interested here's a link to the entire decision (193 pages long):
Full text of Obamacare decision