tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post1554606488803188232..comments2024-03-27T08:40:31.785-06:00Comments on Clayton Cramer.: Supreme Court Upholds ObamacareClayton Cramerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-47732531826550145372012-06-29T19:34:53.851-06:002012-06-29T19:34:53.851-06:00I think that when applying the Anti- Injunction Ac...I think that when applying the Anti- Injunction Act, retroactivity is not permitted.<br /><br />CheersMinicapthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13421626155178200181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-21367141929723039272012-06-29T07:23:34.749-06:002012-06-29T07:23:34.749-06:00Or maybe not; from Michael Graetz at Columbia:
I...Or maybe not; from <a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/06/the-afforable-care-act.html" rel="nofollow">Michael Graetz at Columbia</a>:<br /><br /><i><br />Interestingly, the four dissenters did not claim that imposing such a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance would be unconstitutional. Instead they relied on the constitutional significance of Congress calling the fee a penalty, not a tax. Justice Roberts insisted that this Congressional label was not relevant in assessing the provision’s constitutionality. In a twist, however, Justice Roberts held that the congressional label was determinative in deciding whether the Anti-Injunction Act—a statute which bars lawsuits challenging taxes before the time for their collection—applied, a holding with which the four dissenters agreed. So, the Court decided that even though the provision is a tax for interpreting the Constitution, it is not a tax for interpreting the Anti-Injunction statute. Around Congress, it has often been said about taxes that “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Today, poultry just became far easier to identify than a “tax.”<br /></i><br /><br />HT the Instpundit.ThatWouldBeTellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910231314995266781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-19881805552906666922012-06-28T18:26:14.317-06:002012-06-28T18:26:14.317-06:00It passes the duck test since it's collected b...It passes the duck test since it's collected by the IRS....ThatWouldBeTellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910231314995266781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-11884198344402973472012-06-28T16:40:59.156-06:002012-06-28T16:40:59.156-06:00I anticipate a number of other traps that the Chie...I anticipate a number of other traps that the Chief Justice has placed in his opinion.<br /><br />CheersMinicapthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13421626155178200181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-88135610572851405312012-06-28T12:53:48.624-06:002012-06-28T12:53:48.624-06:00An unfortunate combination of Democrats lying abou...An unfortunate combination of Democrats lying about it being a tax, and Roberts apparently unwilling to split hairs on this.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807403883562053852.post-16570477447337163822012-06-28T12:41:18.164-06:002012-06-28T12:41:18.164-06:00Where I'm confused is here: is the word "...Where I'm confused is here: is the word "tax" (or a synonym) anywhere in the text of the law? If not, the Roberts and the liberal wing made up law out of thin air.I Callahanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685117264945267646noreply@blogger.com