Before I edit this. Does anyone want to join me in reading? Split it up?
Link BTW http://www.supremecourt.gov/... is the text
I am at Page 20 (as of edit 2)
Best way to not have to take "CNN's" word for it is to read the slip but I doubt any of us have the time to quickly convey what looks like a 200 pg opinion.
I am going to start reading it. I'll Edit and put in comments if people read other portions or the dissent.
So far I have read the Syllabus and gotten into the (glossed over) the anti-injunction.
I gather that they did deal with the Commcerce Clause Jurisprudence and found that it has a limiting principle of not forcing an Activity. That strikes me as odd.
Instead they found it Constitutional as a Tax. It seems to be then exactly like the 1993 Senate Bill.
Also, that they struck down Medicare's incentives. As far as I recall from Con Law it was ok to say tie lowering a Drinking Age to funds for highways so far what I read casts doubt on the Government giving money IF. . .
Edit 2:
The Decision deals first with the Gov'ts argument as to how to control the cost shifting/burden through the individual mandate.
1st discussing the Commerce Clause.
Telling is
"Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product."
At P. 18 of the Slip that I have.
"If the Power to Regulate Something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous"
At p. 18 of this slip.
"The Language of the Constitution assumes that there is something there to be regulated"
Doesn't this imply there is no insurance industry?
"The Individual Mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity."
Really?
Lots of Citations to Lopez. A case that was the first since the Commerce power expanded to say "No" to an act of Congress. Decided by the Rehnquist court. In it it said we are not returning to 1937. Scholars at the time wondered "does that mean we are?". Well I wonder if this is the basis as again they are limiting now to artificially created programs don't count. So say based on my reading SS was based entirely on the Commerce Power, that would be creating an industry of Elder Assistance? And unconstitutional?
"Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by point to the effect of inaction on commmerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation"
I see a real lack of citations. I don't like at that this is creating a serious limiting principle.
At least they do not overturn Wickard. Discussion at P 21-22. Saying the Government can control the supply side but not the demand? Ie to control the wheat price they can control the Supply side saying Wickard (a farmer) could not go over a quota. Isn't that basically bringing commerce into those decisions an individual could potentially make? as stated above?"
They don't seem to overturn Wickard but call it the far reach. And imply that if Congress had done the Demand side ie require certain purchases of Wheat it would have been decided differently. Strange.
"Under the Government's Theory they could Mandate everyone buy vegetables (which would help the Health circumstances today)".
Doesn't the government control foods in certain ways? FDA?
Ugh. Don't like the Commerce Clause discussion. IMO not good.
Limits mentioned at P 23. This Decision is creating a limiting power.
Lots of Discussion of Madison and the Framers.
"the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the goverment they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take.
"The distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers who were 'practical statesment' not metaphysical philoophers"
"The framers gave Congress the power to regulate (Rober'ts Emphasis on Regulate) commerce, not to Compel it (Roberts Emphasis on Compel) and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress's actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding Now."
Edit 3:
This Opinion shows a vast Majority in favor of a Limiting Principle.
Looks to allowing definition by Class. States (P25) that the class "active in the market" stated by government as those mandated who would not otherwise are truly targeted because of inactivity.
"The Individual Mandate Forces Individuals into commerce Precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to regulate Commerce.
So there is a limiting Principle now. That is defined power/activity actually happening? Even though effects can be used? But not effects of inactivity? I truly wonder if the 1937 changes would have been constitutional under this. It is a bit worrisome (if you think it is a good thing for Congress to utilize an expansive view of the Commerce Power).
Edit 4:
Neccessary and Proper Clause Next.
Cannot be the basis because each prior case upholding the Law was under that Clause were for a granted Power.
Edit 5:
B. The above is not "the end of the matter". But the "Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate". That was concurred with btw by the usual suspects.
But Roberts now turns (around 31 at B) to the power to lay and collect taxes.
LOL. He begins this section with something you hear at Law School on your first day. The point is to make people realize the law is not infallible and as lawyers you look at the ways it can be interpreted Roberts uses it to say the Goverment also argues it is a tax and literally cites the age old day 1 law school question what does "no vehicles in the park" mean. Bikes? Wheel-Chairs? Etc. I find this amusing personally.
"Every Reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality". (ie including that the mandate is only a consequence of making an additional payment to the IRS).
Very strange to me- If the anti-injunction act forbids suit without having paid the tax, they get around it by saying Congress labeled it a penalty so we can decide it now. But, then say because Congress labeled it a penalty doesn't mean we can't decide whether its a tax. Confused? Me too.
Edit:
"The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First for Americans the amount due will far less than the price of insurance, and by statute it can never be more"
"Taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new"
Me- Well neither are Commerce Clause enactments and you just said that's not ok.
Penalty tied to lawlessness-estimates of how many ppl will not buy- Congress didn't mean penalty to make 4 million (CBO estimate) Americans outlaws.
"Our precedent demonstrates" that Congress had the power to impose the exaction under the taxing power and that s5000a need not be read to do ore than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. The "Question of the constitionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise"
Why the Commerce Power cannot do something about inactivity and the Taxing power can tax you if you decide not to purchase a product:
1. The Constitution makes clear that you cannot avoid taxation through inactiviy.
2. Congress' authority to influence the taxing power is not with limits
3. The taxing power does not give a greater degreee of control over individual behavior
Ginsburg brings up- if you can uphold on taxing power why get to Commerce Power?
Good Point. Roberts created a limiting principle of the Commerce Power. Roberts also now created a talking point "this is a tax".
MEDICAID
OK that is as far as I can go . . .hope
We can break up to thorough looking at what they did to:
1. The Commerce Power (why also if you are going to say OK to the Tax)
2. Tax
3. Medicaid
4. Dissents/Concurrence