Obamacare upheld — as the tax Obama promised us it wasn’t
UPDATE at 11:59 a.m.: The president is expected to comment on the ruling at 12:15 p.m. One wonders how his remarks will square with White House talking points from the Obamacare debate, such as:
What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law.
and
People are required to obey the speed limit and have to pay a penalty if they get caught speeding? Does anyone consider that a tax?
and
People are required to have car insurance and can be fined if they are caught without it. Is that a tax?
In one of the court’s other decisions today, United States v. Alvarez, the justices upheld American’s First Amendment rights to lie about receiving military honors. In the Obamacare ruling, the majority upheld politicians’ First Amendment rights to lie about their policies. Not that anyone thought that kind of lying would ever stop.
UPDATE at 11:42 a.m.: At first blush, any cheers for the court’s declining to uphold Obamacare based on the Commerce Clause should not be too loud.
Writing for the majority, Roberts says, among other things:
People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.
Sounds pretty strong, huh? Maybe even strong enough to place a firm limit on congressional powers under the Commerce Clause?
Maybe so. My guess, however, is that Congress will simply rely less on its Commerce Clause powers in the future and resort to its taxing powers, because Roberts shortly makes clear that this limitation applies only to “police powers” — that is, Congress cannot criminalize inactivity.
Turning to Congress’ taxing powers, Roberts seems to undercut everything he wrote about regulating inactivity:
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. … That, according to the [Federal] 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. (emphasis added)
Viewed in the lens of taxation, then, inactivity is “just another thing,” like … wait for it … activity. So, everything Roberts wrote about Congress’ inability to regulate inactivity amounts to this: Congress can’t throw you in jail for not doing something, but it can take away your personal property for not doing something. This is hardly a comforting limitation.
UPDATE at 11:05 a.m.: The coalitions of justices on various parts of the ruling are a bit tricky to follow, but the bottom line is that Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, voted to uphold the law in its entirety, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and the supposed swing vote of the court, voted to throw it out in its entirety. So, while Kennedy had been seen as the one who would decide the law’s fate, he went right and the court went left. That’s one of many ways this precise ruling — not the broad outcome, but how a majority of justices reached it — is completely unexpected.
UPDATE at 10:55 a.m.: Finally have the ruling. It’s pretty clear why CNN blew it — and, oh, did they blow it, reporting first that the mandate was struck down. From page 2 of the summary:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
But then you turn to page 3 …
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
And page 4 …
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.
So, it’s a tax. Which is exactly what the Obama administration said it wasn’t while it was trying to pass the bill, and then reversed itself and said it was once the law got to court. That distinction may also have implications for repealing the bill.
More to come.
ORIGINAL POST:
The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare as constitutional; beyond that, I can’t say much yet. There have been so many contradictory reports — including about the size of the majority — that I’m not going to comment further until I’ve read the opinion myself.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
474 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:21 pm
Aaaaand, still waiting for any intelligent response from Finn.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:21 pm
“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,”
- Newt Gingrich
iggy
June 28th, 2012
12:21 pm
And here is a personal story of a cancer victim who, blah blah blah. The letter hangs on the wall of The kenyans office…*PUKE*
Tiberious, Refute this
June 28th, 2012
12:22 pm
“Road, the private health insurance market will largely disappear, as they can no longer afford to cover people who are simply being “taxed”.”
This too is opinion and not fact. You are entitled to it but it is not a fact. It’s a guess.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:22 pm
“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance.”
- Newt Gingrich
Reason
June 28th, 2012
12:23 pm
How many of you naysayers .about a national healthcare strategy are going to reject your Medicare benefits. I know of no one who is not pleased with their Medicare benefits but you naysayers might want to trust the private health insurance companies to meet your healthcare needs as you become aged.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:23 pm
Refute this, I have never asserted that my opinion is a fact. That is your problem, not mine.
However, you have yet to come up with any counter arguments to mine, which proves that you are either incapable of doing so, or are simply too lazy to put your brain in gear today.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
12:23 pm
Still waiting for the libs to explain what limits there are on this new taxing authority, wherein the government can tax inactivity.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:24 pm
“I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
Mitt “Etch A Sketch” Romney
Ray
June 28th, 2012
12:24 pm
If companies do all they can for profit motive, don’t work for a company that does not provide health care insurance, if it doesn’t benefit you personally. Eventually, if a company wants the best of the best of hard working Americans, it will offer health care insurance. If it doesn’t, health care exchanges will be available, to cover you, even if you have a health care condition. Free at last! You will not have to work for a slave master, just because he offers health care insurance. You will be able to quit, because you can get health care insurance on your own, FINALLY. Have cancer and want to quit , you finally can. FREEDOM!!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:25 pm
Cheesy Grits, in case you missed it, Newt Gingrich is no longer an elected official in any capacity.
Is there a reason why you are going down this useless path?
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:25 pm
“The great thing about the Canadian health care system is everyone is covered. ”
- Mitt “Etch A Sketch” Romney
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:26 pm
Ray, you have no concept of the word FREEDOM.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:26 pm
“It’s a conservative idea,” says Romney, “insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle.”
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 28th, 2012
12:27 pm
I guess Roberts was intimidated by the executive branch after all.
Great country we live in.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:28 pm
Yeah, cheesy grits, don’t quote people who haven’t been approved by Tiberius. How dare you??
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:29 pm
OMG,the Romney has spoken! He agrees with the dissent! The clouds have opened! The seas are parting. Someone grew a pair!
ld
June 28th, 2012
12:29 pm
Mitt Romney just ended a news conference saying that Obamacare is wrong for the nation because it puts the federal government between people and their doctors.
And anti-abortion laws don’t?
Romney is such a hypocrite– as are much of the bible thumping GOP on this and other issues as to “big” or “small” government.
Tiberious, Refute this
June 28th, 2012
12:29 pm
Tiberious,
You really are deluded here. You consistently state your opinion and then challenge others to refute it as a fact. You do it every day and have done it numerous times today.
And acting like I haven’t come up with any counter arguments to you simply shows how you cannot accept an argument counter to yours being made when it is put in front of your face. See my 12:08 for an example. You don’t have to agree with the argument but pretending it doesn’t exist only works for children and the monsters under the bad.
You really are a vapid, vacuous, non-entity, aren’t you.
Tiberious, Refute this
June 28th, 2012
12:31 pm
bed, not bad
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:31 pm
You really are a vapid, vacuous, non-entity, aren’t you.
NEXT FACT……
Rightwing Troll
June 28th, 2012
12:32 pm
There’s Andy!!!
I’m underwhelmed though..
Jefferson
June 28th, 2012
12:33 pm
The door is open to bring America into the future, walk thru and be proud. Nothing is ever solved by crying, move forward.
ld
June 28th, 2012
12:35 pm
Romney also wants government between people’s sheets.
The GOP doesn’t want more taxes on those that could actually afford to pay more; but at least some are perfectly willing to increase taxes on those that cannot. Roberts has helped prove that.
Obamacare should have failed; that it did not does not make the GOP and more of the “conservative John Roberts ilk” on the Supreme Court the better option.
WE NEED A VIABLE THIRD ALTERNATIVE.
Reason
June 28th, 2012
12:37 pm
What happened to the concept of personal responsibility? I thought republicans even believed in personal responsibly at one time. We require people to have auto insurance to drive because it is a personal responsibility. Why should health insurance be any different? Why should people who can afford it not be required to buy it to cover their spouse and children. Why should I pay for healthcare costs for irresponsible people who can afford ihealth insurance but decide a new car would be a better buy
obama Sin laden
June 28th, 2012
12:38 pm
Thank you John Roberts. thank you,thank you, thank you. And you will be thanked again on 11/6/12.
ld
June 28th, 2012
12:38 pm
If this Obamacare penalty is a “tax” and you don’t pay your taxes, does this mean opening “debtor’s prisons” for all those that don’t pay the tax or the penalty?
Maybe we should all invest in the private prison industry as well as the insurance industry.
Will
June 28th, 2012
12:39 pm
Republican newspaper writters and tv/radio entertainers are a hoot!
Yesterday their mantra was that Governor Romney would be elected because of the economy.
Employment, taxes and spending would be the only thing that mattered. All other issues were just attempts by the liberal media to take the focus off of the economy.
Today? Governor Romney won the election the moment the Supremes upheld Obamacare. No….wait….the issue is the economy right?? No….well maybe….but no….we won by losing…just like we won by losing on three of four rulings by the Supremes on immigration….yes, we did say we would “spike the ball” over Obamacare being overturned but what that meant was that we “would spike the ball” over Obamacare not being overturned because…..we win on every issue either by winning the issue or losing the issue!!!…..just like gas prices….yes, we said the President would lose because of rising gas prices but we meant he would lose because he is secretly fixing gas prices so they go lower in order to be elected!!
I’ll give this for ole Newt. He told me if I voted for him gas would be $2.50 a gallon. I voted for him and it looks like he was telling the truth!!
obama Sin laden
June 28th, 2012
12:39 pm
ID : What we need is another revolution in the USA!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:39 pm
What happened to the concept of personal responsibility?
You asking for Republicans to take personal responsibility and spend their own money to keep their families healthy? My word!
Supreme Court says health mandate’s a tax – CNNMoney | Finance Bar - Daily Finance News Magazine
June 28th, 2012
12:39 pm
[...] updatesWashington Post (blog)Supreme Court upholds healthcare law as tax measureLos Angeles TimesAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Boston Herald -ABC Newsall 11,608 news [...]
Brosephus
June 28th, 2012
12:40 pm
I think Roberts moved ahead of Justice David Souter as a turncoat.
???? I thought the SCOTUS was there to simply rule on the constitutionality of laws/cases that came before it based on the Constitution. I was unaware that there was some kind of ideological bias that was supposed to be part of the deal. That branch of government is supposed to be the least ideological and most factually driven branch of government. If we allow or expect any justice to be driven by ideology instead of jurisprudence, then we may as well scrap the country altogether.
ld
June 28th, 2012
12:44 pm
Watch the next steps for the GOP — and the Dems’ response.
Expect the GOP to immediately start clawing away at all regulations and restrictions for the insurance and health industries and employers that are in this law — especially not even mentioned in the Obamacare decision– and expect them to also work to rip out all employee and consumer protections. If they succeed, the only thing that will be left is the mandate and the tax on the employee class.
Roberts will be roundly condemned by this decision that seems designed to have both short term — aid the GOP win in 2012– and long term benefit — massive insurance company profits.
(expect that the unemployed and unemployable will either get a pass or go to debtors’ prisons)
iggy
June 28th, 2012
12:44 pm
“We require people to have auto insurance to drive because it is a personal responsibility.”
No it isnt. Its a State law.
This has already been explained hundreds of times. If you didnt get it then you wont get it now.
jconservative
June 28th, 2012
12:47 pm
Interesting opinion by the CJ,
On the Commerce Clause Roberts is saying that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce, but they clearly cannot “create” commerce.
And a warning to voters from the CJ on their responsibility to make informed decisions at the polls:
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
And this is not the first case in which the CJ has been reluctant to override policies established by the duly elected representatives of the people. You can expect this philosophy of the CJ to turn cases in the future.
Rightwing Troll
June 28th, 2012
12:47 pm
You have to forgive the wingnuts, they’ve slowly become more and more unhinged as the economy improves and as gas prices fall… this just pushed them over the edge.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:48 pm
Well, today proves that GWB was pretty lousy at appointing a Chief Justice.
Hopefully, President Romney will reverse THAT appointment.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:49 pm
Expect the GOP to immediately start clawing
Glad they will get shot down in the Senate. Let em claw all they like…
Jefferson
June 28th, 2012
12:49 pm
Everyone knows Hillary will be the next justice appointed…
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:51 pm
In the Obamacare ruling, the majority upheld politicians’ First Amendment rights to lie about their policies. Not that anyone thought that kind of lying would ever stop.
Jesus. Bitter much ?
Man you can really tell this one got them good.
What is strange is that whether its ultimately good for the country or not really isn’t the question.
It came from a Democrat Obama and so therefore it must be opposed. It must be evil.
Even though as demonstrated by the quotes when it was their idea a few years earlier it was perfectly fine.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
June 28th, 2012
12:51 pm
Fascinating. Given the proven fiscal mismanagement of government programs like social security, medicare and the post office, libs want their health choices and tax choices left to a bunch of half a$$ beaurocrats. They need to change coins for libs, instead of saying “In God We Trust” they should be reprinted to say “In Gov We Trust”.
Tea Party Meber
June 28th, 2012
12:51 pm
All taxes R penatlys. Especialy if those taxes help fund free abortons 2 women who shuold be at home cooking and cleaning.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
12:51 pm
Refute this, your 12:08 analyzed things as they are today, and doesn’t look at the changes this law will make to private employers.
Therefore, while it was an attempt to provide an intelligent argument, it was a failed attempt.
You cannot keep things the same way after a decision of this magnitude as you have tried to do. Today changed EVERYTHING, and you are apparently incapable of internalizing that and moving to the next logical progression.
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2012
12:52 pm
In the Obamacare ruling, the majority upheld politicians’ First Amendment rights to lie about their policies.
Someone isn’t taking this very well.
Jefferson
June 28th, 2012
12:52 pm
TBM, nothin’s free.
jconservative
June 28th, 2012
12:52 pm
As I have noted previously there is nothing in the law that allows the IRS to invoke a civil or criminal penalty on anyone who simple refuses to the the “no insurance tax”.
So anyone can refuse to buy a policy and refuse to pay the resulting tax. The IRS will send a bill but that is all.
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2012
12:53 pm
…and I’m not here to gloat, but I’d hope Kyle could recognize that maybe what was upheld, was the notion that when you have a law you don’t like, maybe you ought to get people elected who’ll change it, rather than simply hoping the Court will do your political work for you.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 28th, 2012
12:54 pm
Hopefully, President Romney will reverse THAT appointment.
How exactly would he do that?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 28th, 2012
12:54 pm
from Townhall.com:
The only way this deeply unpopular law goes away is through legislative repeal. That only happens, realistically, if President Obama loses in the fall, and Republicans seize the Senate while retaining the House. Even then it will be an uphill fight. Don’t buy anyone’s spin that this is somehow “bad news” for Obama. Yes, it will fire up conservatives even more and hand Mitt Romney a sledgehammer issue (”middle class tax hike,” anyone?), but the president’s signature accomplishment has survived.
md
June 28th, 2012
12:54 pm
“If we allow or expect any justice to be driven by ideology instead of jurisprudence, then we may as well scrap the country altogether.”
Well……seems at least 7 of the 9 are driven by ideology………so what’s that do for us?
If anything, the libs on the court seem to be a bigger problem…….at least Roberts and Kennedy have some movement.