If the “individual mandate” is only constitutional as a tax, why is Obama trying to push the meme that it’s not?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Question: if the President finds that he is in the midst of undertaking an action that has been found to be unconstitutional, is it then incumbent on him to cease said action immediately?
To the point, the SCOTUS ruling in Sebelius makes it plain that the PPACA tax (formerly known as the “individual mandate”) is only constitutional under the taxing power of the federal government. Under the Commerce Clause it is absolutely unconstitutional. In short, if it’s a tax it’s constitutional. If not, it ain’t. So, then, what to make of the administration’s continued insistence that’s it’s not a tax?
If it’s not a tax, it’s unconstitutional which means that the Obama Administration is engaging in a violation of Americans’ constitutionally-protected rights. If they want to proceed with it, they need to characterize it as a tax and own up to it. While I’m not surprised that they don’t want to play it straight and legal, it’s not something they should be allowed to get away with.
Might have been nice for a certain Chief Justice to have worked into his “brilliant” ruling a method by which the Administration could be made to operate within the law and the ruling.