[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Veritas]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM[/quote]
Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it’s not a tax. Nuance is importance.[/quote]
SK: Good point, as many are missing the nuance in the Roberts’ decision, which did emphatically reject the Obama Administration’s Commerce Clause argument: “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. … The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. … Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and – under the government’s theory – empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”
While some, like Brian, are gloating over what they perceive as a clear-cut victory, in truth, it’s anything but. The rebuke: “Under our written Constitution … the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]
Excellent discussion as always by Allan and SK, but as Shakespeare might say: “A tax by any other name would smell as sweet.” And Zeit might say looks like a tax, walks like a tax, etc.
