re: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come

quote:

---

If Congress is the only part of the government that is able to pass taxes why was the individual mandate in the ACA not considered a tax when Congress passed it?


Because Obama and the Democrats couldn't sell it as such. They needed to pass it, then have it challenged at the SC, so Roberts could call it a tax. It didn't matter to them once it was voted into law.

---

So if the judicial branch can change the definition of something and make it a tax, shouldn't the executive branch be able to change the definition so that it is not a tax?

quote:

---

How the frick are you equivocating these, with a serious attempt? Obamacare was passed by Congress as a law, that’s why it survived as a tax.

---

Obamacare specified A FINE!
NOT a tax.
The language was very specific.

Roberts in essence relegislated it, denoting the specifically identified FINE as a tax. If regarded as a FINE as Congress intended, SCOTUS would have rejected it, and Obamacare would have been no more.

Now Roberts is designating a regulatory FINE as a TAX.

That, not whether the IEEPA allows tariffs (which it clearly does), was the crux of SOTUS questioning.

quote:

---

So if the judicial branch can change the definition of something and make it a tax

This isn't the proper description.

---

The individual mandate was passed as a penalty using the commerce clause. SCOTUS said that it was unconstitutional for Congress to use the commerce clause to implement the individual mandate. However, it was constitutional to do it using Congress's powers to tax. So the individual mandate went from a penalty to a tax without any additional votes in Congress. THOSE ARE FACTS!

quote:

---

shouldn't the executive branch be able to change the definition so that it is not a tax?

That's silly

---

Not as silly as the fact that someone awarded you a law degree.

quote:

---

The individual mandate was passed as a penalty using the commerce clause.

---

Politicking by politicians isn't legally binding (or accurate, most of the time).

If you want to see the most powerful version of this, look no further than what Social Security is.

quote:

---

However, it was constitutional to do it using Congress's powers to tax.

---

Yes. That's their job, to label the texts of statutes that Congress creates. It didn't change anything.

How Congressmen describe their legislation is irrelevant. The words of the legislation is all that matters.

quote:

---

The words of the legislation is all that matters.

---

Show us in the legislation where the word tax is associated with the individual mandate penalty. Do take your time.

quote:

---

You may want to check to see if that post was replied to

---

You may want to check to see who the post was addressed to. The fact you ducked it is irrelevant. It was the point of my reference.

quote:

---

Here's the relevant case for you

---

four Justices found its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance (26 U.S.C. 5000A) constitutional under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts found it constitutional by reasonably characterizing it as a tax.

Again, show us in the legislation where the word tax is associated with the individual mandate penalty. Do take your time.

quote:

---

Before the "gotcha" attempts flow

---

quote:

---

Two ENTIRELY different scenarios being discussed.

---

It was you who brought up the STUDENT LOAN POTATOBRAIN Case as similar. The similarity between the Tariff Case and the Potatobrain Case is solely with the Emergency designation.

quote:

---

How Congressmen describe their legislation is irrelevant. The words of the legislation is all that matters.

---

This is a level of stupidity that I didn't think that even you could achieve.

So if I tell you that your "wife" is my pet otter, she is now an otter. Got it.

quote:

---

Obamacare specified A FINE!
NOT a tax.
The language was very specific.

Roberts in essence relegislated it, denoting the specifically identified FINE as a tax. If regarded as a FINE as Congress intended, SCOTUS would have rejected it, and Obamacare would have been no more.

Now Roberts is designating a regulatory FINE as a TAX.

That, not whether the IEEPA allows tariffs (which it clearly does), was the crux of SOTUS questioning

---

This is the post of thread.

Perfectly stated.