For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase

[polksalet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/p...mp;ref=politics

[caddyman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/p...mp;ref=politics

Shocking...now I can't wait for Barackpwally to come in and beat up the source.

[driveby]

no surprise

[Sox]

Interesting how they cherry pick the part of the constitution they claim makes the "tax" constitutional...

 

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

 

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

 

Because the penalty

is

 

a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

 

 

While leaving out the part that makes it unconstitutional.

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[caddyman]

Interesting how they cherry pick the part of the constitution they claim makes the "tax" constitutional...

 

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

 

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

 

Because the penalty

is

 

a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

 

 

While leaving out the part that makes it unconstitutional.

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

What's even a smaller surpise is the lack of response from the supporters here. Friggin crickets as usual.

[yo mama]

Hammer: meet nail (from the article).

 

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

 

It's irrelevant that President Obama mischaracterized the tax as a "penalty." That has no impact on its constitutional validity.

[Sox]

...and as a tax should be uniform.But it isn't.It only applies to those that don't comply.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Hammer: meet nail (from the article).

 

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

 

It's irrelevant that President Obama mischaracterized the tax as a "penalty." That has no impact on its constitutional validity.

remember the" FEE" years

[Azazello1313]

the ends justify the means, and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

[bpwallace49]

Shocking...now I can't wait for Barackpwally to come in and beat up the source.

 

Dont be stupid. I laugh at op-eds that you triumphantly hold up as the gospel truth. This article is not an opinion article at all.

 

It will be interesting to see how this stands up in court . .

[yo mama]

...and as a tax should be uniform .But it isn't.It only applies to those that don't comply.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. The "uniformity" clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 only requires geographical uniformity. But hey, if you don't believe a tax attorney, you can read all about in on Wikipedia if you want to.

Edited July 21, 2010 by yo mama

[yo mama]

the ends justify the means, and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

Should I buy you this tee-shirt? Perhaps Mr. Cliche and I can go half-sies.

Edited July 21, 2010 by yo mama

[BiggieFries]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. The "uniformity" clause of Article *, Section 8, Clause 1 requires geographical uniformity. But hey, if you don't believe a tax attorney, you can read all about in on Wikipedia if you want to.

 

 

Should I buy you this tee-shirt? Perhaps Mr. Cliche and I can go half-sies.

 

FYI, neither of your links work.

Edited July 21, 2010 by BiggieFries

[yo mama]

FYI, neither of your links work.

Working links cost extra. (they're fixed now )

Edited July 21, 2010 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

Working links cost extra. (they're fixed now )

 

Nope.

[yo mama]

Nope.

They might not be fixed in Biggie's response, but they (should) be working in my original post. (At a minimum, they're working for me).

[westvirginia]

Nope.

 

Duh - was clicking biggie's post.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

What's even a smaller surpise is the lack of response from the supporters here. Friggin crickets as usual.

 

uhm. I think yo mama has taken care of the uniformity clause argument pretty thoroughly here. And sox shoiuld be slightly embarassed by his claim of the definition of uniformity because if you thought about taxation for about two seconds you can come up with dozens of examples where not everyone is taxed exactly the same way due to intrinsic differences in said people. I dunno, like the death tax for example? I suspect that this uniformity clause thing is one of those mindless reiterations from someone's talking point that gets repeated with nary a thought given to the content. content that can be dispelled if one just thinks for about two seconds.

As to the saying it's not a tax, then justifying it legally by the power of taxation that is indeed lame rhetoric. Suck it up and call it a tax. It's mostly semantics, but one should be honest about it....