And So It Begins..

Oh, CNN.  Why do you toy with me?

I am so glad I got this screenshot before they corrected it.

Here is the full text of the Supreme Court Decision on the ACA.

The page numbers below refer to the second document in the PDF (the first is only a few pages): the Opinion of the Court.

Perhaps this is why CNN got it wrong this morning.  On p 27, "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity.  Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”


woohoo!  It is unsustainable!  Oh, wait.  It's just unsustainable under the Commerce Clause.  But it's alright if we call it a tax.

I get that the ACA Individual Mandate can be interpreted as a tax.  The Justices are supposed to interpret the law in a way that would keep it constitutional, if they can.  That they did.  Still, it's interesting that they have deemed it a tax.  


It's a tax.  Did you hear that?  It IS a tax.  So that's why this is so funny.

From the text again, end of page 31, "And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that
does not do so." 


First meaning:
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance"

And at the top of 32: "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."
That's the second interpretation.

Ok, makes sense.

"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 (1932)."


Oh.  So the straightforward meaning of a law doesn't have to be the only interpretation, but 'fairly possible' interpretations are valid?


 "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 (1895). " p 32

I didn't know that - every possibility must be entertained before determining unconstitutionality.  I suppose it's like deciding a 'guilty' verdict - innocent with reasonable doubt, and guilty only when no doubt remains.  If there is a feasible alternative to a guilty verdict, the defendant (in this case the ACA Individual Mandate), must go free.

But then it doesn't matter what Congress' argument was in the first place?  It doesn't matter that they argued that this was NOT a tax?  Apparently not.



Bottom of 33:

"It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.”  But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act,  supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power."

They cite several precedents to support this.  Congress was wrong to deny that the penalties for non-compliance were a tax, but they are nonetheless, and it is within Congress' power to tax.

Here they are:

States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935): “Disregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”  

United ; cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) : “[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted) 

Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941): “In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it” (internal quotation marks omitted)

United States v.  Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978): “That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ . . . does not alter their essential character as taxes”

That's how I read the ruling, anyway.

I have no doubt that a conservative majority could have found and worded a full justification for striking down the Individual mandate.  After all, four of the nine Justices did not find the majority's argument sufficient.  As it is now, I have only just realized the grave significance of the appointments of the most recent justices, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan by President Obama.

I don't know much at all about the Supreme Court.  Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have been the deciding vote in this case, and he was appointed by George W. Bush.

I won't say this decision was wrong since I have no experience, no authority, and no comprehensive argument to support that.  Right now my biggest disappointment is due to the fact that this is not over, and they fight for religious freedom must go forward.  I was honestly hoping the ACA would be struck down just so all of the HHS lawsuits would be unnecessary.

Check out this graphic

I can't deny that the ACA has been helpful, but I am so worried about the costs, to both our finances and our liberty.