Custom Search

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Supreme Court Legally Defines Individual Mandate As A Tax, Obama Admin Still Lying To The Public

By Susan Duclos

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down their decision on Obamacare and upheld the individual mandate by legally defining it as a tax, making it the largest tax for the middle-class in history.

(See Comprehensive List Of Obamacare Tax Hikes With Effective Dates- HERE)

Obama officials and surrogates are still lying about the tax and insisting it is just a penalty, not a tax, despitethe final arbiter, the Supreme Court, putting the question to bed, so to speak.

(Below the Obama campaign and surrogates denials and the video of Obama vehemently denying that the individual mandate is not a tax in 2009, will be the exact wording from the Supreme Court decision proving and legally defining it as a tax as well as the embedded ruling and instructions on exactly where to find the relevant pages.)

White House spokesperson, Jay Carney, a day after the High Court issued it's ruling and legally defining the individual mandate as a tax, told reporters "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right."

Obama surrogate, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call, "Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling. This is a penalty."

Barack Obama in 2009, vehemently denied the individual mandate was a tax, and while many have seen that video, for those that have not, watch below:

In the Syllabus, page  3 and 4 of the Supreme Court decision, which is embedded below the direct applicable quotes from the ruling.

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.

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
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. Pp. 33–44

On page 39 of the Supreme Court Decision, CJ Robert writes in the majority opinion:

The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation,2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010).

The portion of the decision that deals with the individual mandate as a tax goes from page 37 to page 50 of the PDF embedded below, for those that wish to read the entire reason of why the individual mandate survived as a tax.

From page 22 to page 38, you can also read why the individual mandate would have been ruled unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, which is what Obama lawyers argued for, and his campaign and surrogates are still attempting the cast it as, by arguing that it is a "penalty" not a tax.

Full decision embedded below: Supreme Court Obamacare Decision