Michael S. Rozeff
lewrockwell.com
June 28, 2012
Michael Eversden pointed this out to me, so I read that portion of the decision, and it’s true: The Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution). The relevant portion of a paragraph reads:
“The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”
Unbelievable!
Tags: Constitution, Domestic News, Legislation
Share this article:
Related posts:
Plain talk: "Arab Spring benefited only Israel"
Drinking tea can lower the risk of diabetes
Mika Brzezinski Learns From Daddy All About the Benefits of Failure -- Which He Certainly 'Achieved'...
Attorney General Eric Holder Honors Two Individuals For Strength, Perseverance In Bringing Justice T...
Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate America
Tinkebell, Provocative Dutch Artist, Questions How We Look At Animals