Thursday, June 28, 2012


Then Allow Me to Retort

In response to the Supreme Court ruling today, DNC executive director Patrick Gaspard tweets: "It's constitutional, Bitches." to which I reply:

It's a tax, liars!

That should show them.


It's too bad that it takes a law and a tax to do the right thing...
What in your mind is the "right thing" here?
Ilya Somin over at Volokh just posted on the topic of penalty v. tax. He raises the question: if it's now a tax, then is it a constitutional tax? It fails the apportionment requirement of a "direct tax," and it's not a duty, impost or excise tax. Nor is it an income tax, which needed a constitutional amendment before it could be enacted.
So, ???
Here's the link:
Yeah, I read that. But the chief justice said it wasn't direct if I recall. But he also said it wasn't a tax regarding application of the anti-declarative actions act but it was a tax to salvage an otherwide unconstitutional (in its entirety) law. Something doesn't add up here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only constitutional taxes that I'm aware of are direct, duty, impost, and excise. If it's not a direct tax (requiring apportionment), what kind of tax is it? An income tax?
...still haven't found time to read the opinion(s). Gadzooks, it's long. I'm finding excuses not to start it....
Oops, left income tax out of the list; meant to include it.
"Haste makes waste" was never truer than on the internet....
Robert says it is related to income so I guess per 16th Amendment the tax/mandate/penalty did not have to be apportioned (although it's clearly not a tax of income). Thanks for all your comments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?