ROBERTS DECIDED THE TAX ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF FAIRNESS, NOT LAW
| slim_shady_man | 06/28/12 | | slim_shady_man | 06/28/12 | | .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.. | 06/28/12 | | hank_scorpio | 06/28/12 | | slim_shady_man | 06/28/12 | | Albert Clifford "A.C." Slater | 07/06/12 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:54 PM
Author: slim_shady_man
The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government's alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See § 5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress's constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981792&forum_id=2#20977159) |
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:56 PM
Author: .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..
cr. it might be "fair," but is it scholarship?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981792&forum_id=2#20977171) |
|
|
The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
