A Qualified Defense of CNN
So everybody is laughing at CNN, and I did too (on Facebook), because they initially reported that the Supreme Court had thrown out the individual mandate. But actually, their mistake is very understandable. If you look at the actual ruling, it’s over 60 pages long. Obviously news organizations aren’t going to parse the whole thing, they’re going to skim it to see what the “big picture” is and report that right away.
So, if you actually start reading this thing from the beginning, this is what you see, with my bolding (and this is all on the first two and a quarter pages, I’m just taking out some boring stuff):
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*
In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage….2 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
…
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part. 1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court …2. 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. Pp. 16–30.
(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
For anyone who actually believes the 5th grade version of the “checks and balances” in our government, the above should have been definitive. First, the ruling explicitly said that some parts of the Act earlier ruling were held and some were not, and second, it went on to say the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of the Congress’ power. It was entirely understandable that CNN went to town based on the above.
To drive home the point (as many are saying), what if the federal government said, “We’re not interfering with abortion or a woman’s right to choose, but the IRS will increase your tax bill by $50,000 if you get an abortion.”
Fox got it wrong too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8k6aIW8558
Let’s be fair here. The’re all a bunch of idiots.
Except Dan, I don’t think they’re being idiotic here. What’s idiotic is to say the mandate is not a valid exercise of the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause–to do so would give the feds unlimited power!–but hey it’s cool to get it via a tax.
I’m afraid I must agree with you here Bob. (Rethinking yet?)
The law is pretty clear in making this a penalty. There may be OTHER laws where it’s a tax.
Since we were playing paradox games earlier: Wasn’t there some ruling about the secondary law requiring taxes to be paid before they can be challenged being ruled inapplicable here? If it is now applicable why shouldn’t that moot the rest of the decision?
“For anyone who actually believes the 5th grade version of the ‘checks and balances’ in our government, the above should have been definitive.”
How so? The taxing power is an independent grant of power.
Forcing people to pay private companies is not a tax. The Supreme Court just set a precedent on a new definition.
What if Congress threatened to “fine” me $1,000 a year for not buying cigarettes from their private sector contributors? Or $2,000 a year for not buying financial securities, such as government bonds?
According to the precedent set in this latest ruling, Congress could call these fines “taxes”.
For some reason the overall point is being lost on you, because of a depraved desire on your part to ensure that nobody says anything “bad” about the state’s power grabbing. What, is it because you are a socialist who wants socialized healthcare in the country, constitution and laws be damned?
Tell me your real motivation here, Huff. And don’t say something stupid like “I just want to make sure people are accurate”, because the internet is full of inaccurate statements and yet you chose to focus your attention on this particular topic.
“Forcing people to pay private companies is not a tax.”
That’s not how it works. It’s a tax (under the Court’s reading) on failure to purchase health insurance. It’s interesting to note, by the way, that the mandate does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes (due to their household income falling beneath the threshold).
Anyway, I don’t really buy the tax argument. That wasn’t what I was getting at. My point is that you can’t reject the government’s tax argument purely on the basis that you’ve rejected its Commerce Clause argument.
“What, is it because you are a socialist who wants socialized healthcare in the country, constitution and laws be damned?”
On the contrary; I was against this legislation, and believe it’s unconstitutional. I do not believe in judicial review, but if it is going to exist, this law was a good candidate for being struck down. Just yesterday I wrote a blog post calling out a smug commentator for misusing McCulloch v. Maryland to attack the dissenters.
“[T]he internet is full of inaccurate statements.”
True, but most aren’t made on blogs I frequent.
That’s not how it works. It’s a tax (under the Court’s reading) on failure to purchase health insurance.
In other words, you’re being coerced into paying private companies. The tax is both the fine and the premiums.
The courts justification for upholding the mandate is that it represents a tax, something that Congress is granted the authority to do in the Constitution. However, with this justification, could they not pass a law stating that you must kill your firstborn child, and if you don’t you must pay a tax? I mean, it is the same reasoning as far as I’m concerned.
Essentially, there are no limits to what they can “mandate”, just so long as there is a “tax” associated with any failure to do what is mandated.
JF I think they should tax your new headshot.
You better start lobbying now, I intend to keep it for the long haul.
Well, they might start reading more and skimming less from now on!
“To drive home the point (as many are saying), what if the federal government said, ‘We’re not interfering with abortion or a woman’s right to choose, but the IRS will increase your tax bill by $50,000 if you get an abortion.'”
A tax credit for not getting an abortion? What you’re missing is that the Fifth Amendment limits the taxing power, whereas the Commerce Clause clearly doesn’t.
Not a tax credit for not getting an abortion. A tax bill for getting one.
The IRS not taxing someone is not the equivalent of a tax credit. A tax credit is a sum DEDUCTED from a person’s EXISTING tax bill.
And where are you getting this “what you’re missing” stuff?
Consider two hypotheticals:
Law A imposes a tax of $50,000 on all income-earners (whose household income does not fall below such-and-such amount), and provides a $50,000 tax credit for those who do not get an abortion.
Law B imposes a tax of $50,000 on all income-earners (whose household income does not fall below such-and-such amount) who get an abortion.
Surely you’ll agree that these are functionally equivalent. But there are lots of analogies to Law A on the books right now.
The initial $50,000 tax on all households did not exist before, if this analogy is to make sense.
So basically, according to the man in the silly robe:
It is illegitimate for the government to force you to do A, but it is perfectly legitimate for it to ask you [nicely maybe?] to do A and shoot you if you so refuse.
Does it get more “1984” then this?
Remember, there were 5 people in silly robes who like fascism.
Well yes, but weren’t the other 4 people in silly robes at least more honest and less “Orwellian” when they basically asserted [again] the government’s right to do what ever the f*$#K it wants?
The longer I’m a libertarian, the more shocked I am at how statists “think”.
Nothing shocks me anymore.
…..I have become Comfortably Numb.
Yes, you will eventually reach that stage also.
I am soooo sick of all this. Statist-fascist legislation, appeals, Supreme Nudniks uphold or overturn, more useless elections, more kicking the can down the road, lather, rinse, repeat. The Republicrooks will promise to repeal SovietCare, and if they do they will replace it with SovietCare lite. More elections, more rearranging of deck chairs, less and less freedom.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I am very pessimistic now. Even on the Free State Project forums, people are writing about all the TAXES up there in New Hampshire! I couldn’t believe it! Dividend, capital gains, and supposedly property taxes as high as in Massachusetts! New Hampshire, the “free” state? Some people on the forums are actually expressing hopes of how THEY will change things. (Good luck, with all the limousine liberal refugees from Massachusetts!)
There’s really no where to go now, no escape from the increasingly Totalitarian States of Amerika. You think Rand Paul is going to save our liberty from SovietCare? And no thanks to those schnooks Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc. and their rotten Constitution that cancelled out anything the Declaration of Independence tried to express.
It’s too bad the Supremes had to expend all that energy (60 pages) explaining its decision and thereby confusing the poor souls who have to report on it. A simple decree would’ve sufficed – “This is the deal. Obey or else.” Did anyone really think the government obeys the rule of law? If Obama has the authority to murder American citizens he certainly has the authority to impose a healthcare scheme.
Tactful, as always.
Right, because only a genius insults people by referencing lewd sex acts. You have a disturbing fascination with that crap.