"Policy problems aside, by transforming the mandate into a tax to
avoid one set of constitutional problems (Congress having exceeded its constitutionally
enumerated powers), the court has created another problem. If the mandate is an
indirect tax, as the Supreme Court held, then the Constitution's
"Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax
to "be uniform throughout the United States." The Framers adopted
this provision so that a group of dominant states could not shift the federal
tax burden to the others. It was yet another constitutional device that was
simultaneously designed to protect federalism and safeguard individual liberty.
"The Supreme Court has rarely
considered the Uniformity Clause's reach, but it cannot be ignored. The court
also refused to impose meaningful limits on Congress's power to regulate
interstate commerce for decades after the 1930s, until justices began to
re-establish the constitutional balance in the 1990s with decisions leading up
to the ObamaCare ruling this summer. And although the court has upheld as
"uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent
makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and
effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the
Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this
standard."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732470510457815116410137548
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Any law that pretends to be adequate to the task of "managing"
delivery of health care would be bad, by definition. One that does so which was
passed in haste with minimal review by a President desperate for a legacy would
have to be worse, and this one is. It's a disaster in the making. Not that I don't think it
would be nice to be able to wave a magic government want and make everything
alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment