[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device