Health care reform to SCOTUS? Finally?

I'm not sure how McCulloch v. Maryland helps those who want the law struck down, Rick. McCulloch read the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution broadly and thus expanded the powers of the federal government. It also emphasized the supremacy of the federal government over the states. The tax at issue was one levied by the state of Maryland on the federal Bank of the United States, and it was declared unconstitutional.

As for the Minnesota newspaper case you've cited, it's inapt because it dealt with a state tax, for one thing. The issue in the healthcare cases is the power of the federal government. Beyond that, the state tax was unconstitutional because it abridged the freedom of the press. A state can tax newspapers, but singling them out for taxation violates the First Amendment. (In theory, such a tax could be allowed if the state had a compelling interest in it, but that's a very high bar to clear.)

 

Both cases involved governments trying to grab powers they don't have and justifying it with their taxation power. Yes, you can distinguish details, but I think it clearly proves that just saying "It's a tax" isn't going to cut it. States can't do it, and there's no reason the federal government (Whose powers are theoretically even more limited by the Constitution) can't do it.

The Court may ultimately rule that a health-care mandate is within the scope of Congress's interstate commerce powers, but they won't give it an okay just because 'It's a tax.' That justification being upheld would ultimately remove any restraints on government power, ever.

 

Still waiting for an answer...was he lying or being intentionally deceptive...or telling the truth?

 

Haven't they already abandoned that argument?

While it doesn't look great, it's not like he was in a court when he said it.

 

The answer is that he was avoiding calling it a "tax" because that would be politically treacherous. But I don't think it really matters what Congress or the President calls something. Cases aren't decided on semantics. Think about employee-employer relations, for an analogue. Employers frequently try to call certain employees "independent contractors" - this happens a lot with delivery truck drivers and cab drivers, for example - because it's better economically for the employer to do so. But courts couldn't care less what they call them, even in situations where the employee him or herself signs something saying he or she is an "independent contractor." They want to know how the relationship is structured. No different here.

 

Obama lying, knock me over with a feather.

 

Fixed.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd classify it as "lying."

I'm sure he'd try to explain why it's not a tax and want the case decided under the Commerce Clause. He's lawyering, that's all.

 

So unless the law is repealed we might as well get used to this economy until 2014. No one will hire until this law is repealed or they can actually see how much damage it is going to do.