Political Ramifications of SCOTUS ruling

[Sharpienads]

Did you not hear the announcement yesterday?

Yeah, I did, unfortunately. But that doesn't make it Constitutional.

Additionally, if the mandate is a tax, not a penalty, Obamacare is still unconstitutional because all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. The bill, as passed, originated in the Senate.

[Ronin13]

Look on the bright side, the ruling would allow you as President to pass a law making everyone buy a gun.

Wouldn't be the first time... kinda...

Like Switzerland? They have a mandate that all males of military age must keep a firearm in the household for militia purposes! I like that! Can we be like them in that regard?

[Sharpienads]

Like Switzerland? They have a mandate that all males of military age must keep a firearm in the household for militia purposes! I like that! Can we be like them in that regard?

I was thinking more along the lines of the Militia Act of 1792, in which Congress said that males eligible for the militia had to have certain items, including a firearm, powder, etc.

[Ronin13]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Militia Act of 1792, in which Congress said that males eligible for the militia had to have certain items, including a firearm, powder, etc.

Oh kicking it old school... I'm totally behind that idea 110%. I was just referring to a more recent example.

[RMD]

I don't think this is true. Congress, per the Constitution (not that it really matters nowadays) can only levy taxes in certain ways. Taxing you for not not doing something is not a power they have.

I can't remember the precedent, but it seems like I read a case that basically said they could.

So "medicare for all" would be constitutional - everyone pays 1% of their income to set up government-run health care. Obviously, this isn't what they did, but it would have been legal had they chosen that route.

But the dems swore up and down back in 2010 it was NOT a tax, until they had to argue in front of SCOTUS a few months ago. It was almost a side note...but I think Roberts ruled the way he did so that it MUST be considered a tax or else it wasn't constitutional.

[DeusExMachina]

An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.

If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.

If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.

Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?

[Rucker61]

Oh kicking it old school... I'm totally behind that idea 110%. I was just referring to a more recent example.

The problem there is that by creating all that new demand, prices go up for the rest of us. I'm not done buying guns and ammo yet.

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[00tec]

An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.

If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.

If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.

Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?

Rebate from what? Taxes? They wouldn't have gotten it passed that way because they would have to explain the significant tax increase first.

[Ridge]

An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.

If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.

If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.

Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?

Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.

Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.