Power to tax is unlimited, then?
Reader comment on: Early Thoughts on the ObamaCare Ruling
Submitted by Amarsir (United States), Jun 28, 2012 11:24
People have been saying for months that "if it was called a tax it would be OK." So I don't blame Roberts for not wanting to play a vocabulary game. Bad laws can still be Constitutional (though I'm beginning to doubt that the opposite will ever be ruled, ever again.)
But, how did "non-participation in commerce" become a valid basis for taxation? As I understand it:
Indirect tax is based on an event, like an excise or an estate tax.
Direct taxes are required to be based on the census and divided proportionally among the states.
Except for the income tax, via the 16th amendment.
Haven't they therefore decided that a non-event is defined as a "taxable event"? That strikes me as a worse case of double speak than which word is used.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item