Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
The ACA passed by 5-4 on partly John Roberts reasoning that it was a fucking tax and congress had the authority to tax.
|
"Passed" what?
The provision penalizing employers was characterized as a tax, even though the administration argued otherwise. There is no SCT decision declaring that the "ACA is a tax" ..... "fucking" or otherwise .... although it is A FUCKING!
You want to generalize to support your point or minimalize to make it.
The United States Supreme Court (and Federal court's generally) determine the "issues" before it, as presented in appellate points, with a focus on making its decision on the narrowest basis possible without declaring that an act of Congress is constitutional or not, and in the process of doing so often determines the validity/enforceability of an act based on the authority of Congress to enact it.....and in characterizing the penalty as a tax asserted the penalty provision was within Congressional authority to impose a tax.
Roberts:
"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
...
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
...
"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
"As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.
"The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."
___________________ End of quoted material______________________ ________
The question decided was on the "mandate" penalty and requiring the States to act.
That was it....
.and Congress lacked the authority under both, except on the "mandate" as a tax.
There was no "passing" of the ACA. And that is what you said.
WTF: "The ACA passed by 5-4..."
for your wingman Buttman, or are you just fucking stupid?
