The one area of general contention regarding the legislation is the “mandate.” That is, can the government require citizens to engage in commerce?
The law’s implementation consists of a penalty to be paid as part of annual income taxes if the filing party doesn’t have health insurance meeting a minimum standard. I believed before, and continue to believe, that a tax increase, coupled with a tax credit for meeting that minimum standard, would have passed constitutional muster without difficulty. After all, we can get tax credits for buying wind turbines, or hybrid cars, or extra insulation for our houses. This would have been a slam dunk.
But that’s not what’s in the law. We are penalized for not buying something. Is this a distinction without a difference? Certainly our wallets would say so. But the law is funny in that it looks at the means as much as it does at the end. This may be the pin upon which the entire law will hinge at the Supreme Court.
- Federal Judge Declares PPACA Unconstitutional (alankatz.wordpress.com)
- Judge Roger Vinson Prepares to Apply the Two-by-four to a Government Mule (healthcarebs.com)
- Health Care Law Legal Gymnastics (blogs.abcnews.com)
- Florida Judge Issues Stay Of Own Ruling Finding Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Florida judge wants an end to DOJ foot-dragging on Obamacare (michellemalkin.com)
- Judge on Health Appeal:The Clock Is Ticking (foxnews.com)