Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court of the United States of Ameristan has evidently decided that the federal government enjoys unlimited power. Freedom is seemingly irrelevant and nonexistent, and thus here in the People's Republic of America, the government can unconstitutionally do as it wishes, without restriction by law or liberty.

Edited by Wotan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so twisted. They upheld it as a "tax", yet it's not a "tax" for the purposes of the anti-injuction act... (which is good at least or it would be blocked from repeal until in effect). They ruled that its use under commerce and neccessary and proper clause weren't constitutional, but yet it's okay as a tax.

Now it's up to the Republicans and Romney to do something about it. How pathetic. My consolation is that they did reject the idea that congress can regulate inactivity, although that's quite hallow seeing as how apparently they can do anything anyway if it's a "tax". If the spineless republicans can actually manage to repeal part or all of it, perhaps it might create a renewed taste for repealing all kinds of laws. (Trying to be optimistic)

The real goal as always is to fight for long term proper laws to protect our rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the most ominous implication of this is that in essence the SCOTUS just gave itself the power to tax.

They didn't rule on the legislation- they straight up rewrote the legislation.

ACA supporters both before and during the SCOTUS hearings were adament that the mandate was not a tax.

The SCOTUS rightly ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but then said "taxing would be legal, so even though that isn't in here, and even though the lawyers for the admin say it isn't WE are going to call it that"

Presto- change-o!

And as to Kagan not recusing herself. I think this case is proof that the ultimate decision should not be left to the judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framed as a discussion about the implications of the law, this could be a thread in its own right. It certainly doesn't belong in the SCOTUS immigration thread. We'll be sure to move it if, after the discussion develops, it turns out that this belongs in another thread.

So, the individual mandate is not constitutional as part of the commerce clause... But it is constitutional as a tax. Aside from the fact that we will have to wait until 2014 for another legal challenge (taxes must actually harm you before they can be challenged), can someone please explain to me the implications? It seems to me that congress can force me to buy a prostitute if they want - so long as the penalty is framed as a "tax."

Edit: I didn't see this SCOTUS thread before, so I'm combining this with the "A Government of Unlimited Power" thread.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thing-

didn't the ACA that the SCOTUS just ruled on originate in the Senate?

Because if the rule of law was being followed (rolls eyes) it would get thrown out on that basis alone.

If the only way it is legal is if it is a tax- the Senate doesn't have the power to propose taxes.

That is what the House is for...

but am I mistaken about it originating in the Senate?

you know, aside from being mistaken about any interest our govt may have in the right rule of law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the law is so outrageous that in a law abiding nation under our Constitution it never would have seen the light of day.

So, that (if I'm correct about the origination which I'm pretty sure I am) is only one a myriad things that should cause it to be tossed.

But what we do know is that if Obama stays in office our nation will only become more and more lawless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[157] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[158] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[159] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I hate the law, I think the court's reasoning is consistent with other cases. If the government does not say 'you must buy insurance", but instead says "anyone who does not buy insurance has to pay a tax", then it is no different from other tax laws. For instance, anyone who does not have a child of a certain age does pay extra tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I hate the law, I think the court's reasoning is consistent with other cases. If the government does not say 'you must buy insurance", but instead says "anyone who does not buy insurance has to pay a tax", then it is no different from other tax laws. For instance, anyone who does not have a child of a certain age does pay extra tax.

Here's the flaw, via Justice Kennedy's dissent

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/235361-courts-conservatives-slam-vast-judicial-overreaching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Roberts was being stupid like a fox though.

As written, the ACA would require a majority to repeal that is unlikely to happen.

However, if the individual mandate is a tax, taxes need only a simple majority in congress to deal with.

Again, the big assumption here is that anyone cares about the rule of law anymore.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the flaw, via Justice Kennedy's dissent.
I'd have loved to see Kennedy's opinion be the majority opinion. However, I don't think his opinion is more consistent with existing precedent.

The simple-majority issue is an interesting twist.

Apart from that, I think that even if the court had ruled the mandate unconstitutional leaving the rest of the act in place, Obama would not have pushed to change anything else. So, either way, we would still have the law in place when the next Congress and president are in office. Only by negating the whole law could the court have made a big difference.

I think this decision will increase the motivation of the GOP base, and reduce the motivation of the the Democrats. So, perhaps it adds a percent or so to the Romney vote.

Romney says he'll push for repeal and grant exemptions to states, but I wonder if he will actively push Paul Ryan's version or something like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to remember that The Saviors Romney and Ryan have the exact same basic premises as Obama does when it comes to providing free health care to anybody who wants it, so all they are going to want to do is re-jigger the details about the law and direct some handouts to their cronies.

My prediction is that if elected they "repeal" the law and change the name to the "Freedom Loving American Health Care Act" which contains the exact same essential approach. The ACA is something that Romney supported in his own state, remember...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction is that if elected they "repeal" the law and change the name to the "Freedom Loving American Health Care Act" which contains the exact same essential approach. The ACA is something that Romney supported in his own state, remember...

Yes.

And no.

I'm no fan of Romney, but while fundamentally unjust it was no where near the level of ACA. When you look at ALL the ACA, all the hidden little gems that keep popping up... Romneycare was and is wrong- but it is not the same.

So, where we are confronted with the horrible truth- that we are confronted with the lesser of great evils what we are left with is the choice:

Do we take the staircase or the express elevator to Hell?

I prefer a slower descent into tyranny and madness.

Edited by SapereAude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have anything positive to say? Where to go from here? Realistic advances in the right direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JASKN: This means the presidential election is going to focus on this issue. People are going to vote based on who wants to shut down Obamacare, meaning a GOP candidate might have a chance of winning. Whether that's a boon to the country is up to your personal opinion, personally I think it would be good if one did.

And there is also the more bittersweet news that the harder the state clamps down on freedom the more individualistic people will 'wake up' and rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I had a couple positives, with the caveat that they are only positive assuming that rule of law is respected.

Pluses:

That the commerce clause argument was denied

That if it is in fact a tax then it is much easier to get rid of (in theory)

That the majority of Americans (most polls estimate 60%) disagree with this legislation are going to be motivated by this injustice

That Obama has been yet again shown to be an opportunistic liar- and that now that they must acknowledge that this is a tax there will be further rage.

Obama is now going into election season, in a recession, with high unemployment, anxiety and Amercians feeling less financially secure than they have in generations, having to own that his signature accomplishment is the biggest tax increase on working and middle class people in history.

Edited by SapereAude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf

I recommend checking out the very strongly written dissenting opinion (two thirds down the page). At one point the individual mandate is likened to military conscription and it is said that this law basically destroys any semblence of Constitutional restriction of federal power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at a government decision, I have to ask "What am I going to do about it". For instance, if there was a draft, expect to see me leaving the country or blowing up government buildings, until that point I don't really see much use in doing anything other than trying to convince people of objectivism, because honestly the constitution is a joke and so is the supreme court. The vast majority of people want a social democratic society so that is exactly what we are all going to get. No ammount of saying "but our ancestors said you wouldn't" is going to change this. Just like states right and democracy, most people only cite the constitution when it is convenient for their politics, after that they can find some sophist professor to back up their cognitive dissonance.

EDIT: Removed some stupidity from post.

Edited by Hairnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hairnet, tens of millions of people just got forced into buying insurance. Why would an insurance company get out now?

Yeah that makes sense once I take 2 second to think about it. I am just going to delete that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×