DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
read the decision. It is clear the case means the feds can put any condition on any money they give to the states.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203
Great job chopping that quote short, Ken! Here's the next section (with key part in bold):quote:
Here, if South Dakota were to succumb to Congress' blandishments and raise its drinking age to 21, its action would not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Moreover, the relatively small financial inducement offered by Congress here - resulting from the State's loss of only 5% of federal funds otherwise obtainable under certain highway grant programs - is not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion.
So, apparently, it is different. Withholding all Medicaid funding would have been pretty coercive, no?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393#writing-11-393_OPINION_3
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Now go find the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA and see if they say the Medicaid expansion is not in pursuit of the general welfare (the standard created in SD v Dole).
Where in Chief Justice Robert's opinion is it that the expansion is in pursuit of the general welfare? The Standard in SD v. Dole that really applies here is whether the funding removal is, in fact, coercive or not coercive. In SD v. Dole, it was determined that a 5% withholding of Federal Funding was not coercive. In the SCOTUS decision, it was determined that 100% withholding of all funding, new and old, was coercive. It was decided that the only funding that could be withheld was that funding that would have been granted for expansion.
Want to know what is bizarre about the SCOTUS ruling? The Tax Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit from proceeding because the IRS payment for not having insurance (wording it this way on purpose) was labeled as a "penalty" and not as a "tax." quote:
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15.
The label can control whether a payment is a tax or not, for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but, it was determined, that label meant nothing as to whether or not the payment was allowed under the taxing authority of the US Government. That is, the penalty wasn't a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is, in fact, a tax.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: What the Republicans got - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread