Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Congress can force the purchase of health insurance through its taxing powers, which have traditionally been given much broader latitude by the courts.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Obamacare ‘as a Tax’
FOX News
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's healthcare overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's healthcare system.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains mostly intact. It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected...

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision.

"The Affordable healthcare Act survives largely unscathed," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of those justices, declared at the end of the reading, claiming the "setbacks" going forward will be "temporary blips, not permanent obstructions."

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to 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," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage 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."

Roberts stressed that the decision does not speak to the merits of the law. "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," he said.

The ruling did rein in one element of the law -- the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

Democrats, many of whom were bracing for the court striking down the mandate, celebrated the decision Thursday. But Republicans vowed to re-double their campaign to repeal the still-controversial law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was thought to be the swing vote on the decision, joined the minority in describing the whole law as invalid. "The act is invalid in its entirety," Kennedy said from the bench. He went on to say the administration went to "great lengths to structure the mandate as a penalty, not a tax" -- challenging the majority's rationale for upholding the mandate.

Despite the persistent resistance to the law and the possibility that it could still be repealed, the historic decision Thursday will offer some measure of vindication for Obama, who devoted the first half of his term to pushing it through Congress.

The decision Thursday virtually guarantees the healthcare law will remain at the forefront of the 2012 campaign.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: That this is upheld as a tax is evidence of the underhanded, bait-and-switch, win at all cost deception used by the Obama Administration and the political Left. They sold this issue to the American people saying that in no way, shape or form was it a "tax." Then they argue, after legislation, in front of the SCOTUS, that it is a tax. Now they will "spike the football" saying they have been vindicated. A more dishonest and despicable political faction has never existed in the United States.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server