From the late 1930s until the early 1990s I'd agree, but cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison (when the Court used the commerce clause to limit federal power) complicate this contention. Even NFIB v. Sebelius complicates things. The Right demonizes the case as authorizing Obamacare and deem John Roberts a traitor. The reality is different.
People forget that the Court limited federal power by gutting the Medicaid expansion. Furthermore, Roberts's logic was not crazy. The "mandate" wasn't a true mandate. There was no criminal or civil penalty outside the tax context. It imposed additional tax income tax liability on those who didn't have health insurance. Roberts viewed that as a tax. We can disagree with him, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that logic. For example, we tax people harder if they rent a home rather than buy one. Is that unconstitutional?
In addition, Roberts included language that strongly suggests that he would strike down a wealth tax. He makes it clear that a tax on real or personal property (which is what a wealth tax is) would be a direct tax subject to the capitation requirement, which would kill the tax.
I'm not saying there's no chance that the Court would allow a wealth tax. They can overturn prior opinions. However, there's lot of reason to believe that they wouldn't.
-
Agree x 1
Last edited: Aug 18, 2019