It seems as if Chief Justice John Roberts is very hated. But I would like to withhold judgment on this until some further examination. I keep hearing the beginnings of some conspiracy theory on BOTH sides.
The commerce clause is used too much. It becomes a source of limitless power. In my reading, this is an attempt to limit the commerce clause, to put boundaries on it. Had the ruling been 6-3 and Roberts went over to the other side in order to “right” the opinion he would be praised in an attempt to salvage some of the damage caused.
Now from the decision:
…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.
What WHat WHAT! ..[G]oing without insurance [is] just another thing the Government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income.
What do you mean Like? Gasoline is a thing, earning an income is something, Not getting health insurance is NOT A THING! Is there ANYTHING taxed if I don't have it?
It is not sufficient to raise taxes if someone does not do something. In my opinion, raise everybody’s taxes, and give a Health Insurance Tax Credit (HITC) to those who have health insurance. Insurance companies will give out a proof of insurance forms as well as an electronic form which you would file with your taxes. Thus allowing you to claim you tax credit.
Show me precedent of taxing the lack of something. Where in the History of the United States has our lack of doing something or lack of having something results in us being taxed. Such an example should be used if it ever existed. To compare it like buying gasoline or earning an income, is the fitting of a square peg into a round hole.
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).
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 32 (2012).
This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 28 n 4 (1953)
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 33(2012).
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 34 (2012).
In these examples we have the purchase of licenses and nuclear waste shipments, all seem to be activities being taxed.
- In Drexel Furniture it involved a 10 percent 'tax' on income, regardless of size of infraction. The Health Care Tax then could never exceed the price of Health Care.
- The offender must know they are breaking the law.
- The agency collecting the 'tax' has to have had a history of collecting taxes. IRS yes, Dept of Labor No.
So Chief Roberts is now attempting to address my concern of “taxation without activation”. He first says this NOT a capitation since not everyone pays for it. Then in an attempt to allay my concern, Chief Justice says the Constitution does not guarantee avoiding of tax through inactivity. His example is Capitation. How is it phrased? “Capitations are taxes paid by every person, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” This is a tax which is not able to be avoided by inactivity it also can not be avoided by activity. It is a tax laid “without regard” to action or inaction.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 US Opinion of Roberts C. J. 44-45 (2012).