Originally Posted by Mal H
Now, since we can't determine what you want to say about the mandate as opposed to the Court's ruling concerning the commerce clause until you actually post it, what is it about the mandate itself that you want to discuss?
Thanks, Mal. I am not looking for any special dispensation. The ambiguity I note is that the mandate is what the court discusses in its commerce clause decision, so one wouldn't discuss the mandate as opposed to
the commerce clause ruling. It's what the commerce clause ruling is about.
I've dealt with Al previously, and found him calm and reasonable. I sought clarification so that the ambiguity I had noted could be resolved and that I might write within the boundaries he had envisioned. It wasn't intended to provoke belligerence.
My prior post does pertain to the mandate in discussing the decision and its potential effects, and is consistent with some of what has been written above.
I don't think this ACA decision is quite as awful as many ACA opponents do, in part because it contains some language that may be useful in future.
I would observe that the tax code is already used to influence a wide range of behaviors, and that NFA purchases are discouraged by a substantial regulatory burden and a tax. Nothing would prohibit, as a political matter, that kind of regulatory and tax burden from shifting into all other arms.
The part of the reasoning I find most curious is that the ACA mandate isn't within congressional authority as granted by the commerce clause, but since the congress has the authority to tax the ACA mandate is upheld as a valid exercise of taxing authority.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to foresee a punitive tax on gun ownership or public speaking. Under the Roberts' rationale, since those taxes prohibit no speech or ownership, and congress has taxing authority, would those taxes be upheld?
I do enjoy the forum; it's a great resource.
However, this is your club, and you set the rules. I only meant to determine what they are.