This is the most prominent public occurrence as collated by Google at this hour. The reasoning goes as follows: The case went up to the Supreme Court on a challenge to the "individual mandate" to buy health insurance or to pay a penalty. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that the financial penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to "tax," the individual mandate was constitutional, ergo most of the entirety of the law was constitutional; in 2017 the Republican congress eliminated the "tax" penalty, ergo, from plaintiff's brief, “Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall.”
That...does not follow logically. That is the fallacy of reversibility. Logically, A causes B causes C does not mean C causes B causes A. Congress did not eliminate the individual mandate; it eliminated the financial penalty for not obeying the mandate. The whole issue in the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The Supremes settled the constitutionality of the mandate and of the tax penalty. There can be no other constitutional challenge to the mandate or the "tax." So removing the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the mandate logically settled the constitutionality of Obamacare.
The Republican Congress then came around in 2017 and eliminated the tax penalty. They left the rest of the law, including the individual mandate, untouched. They can do that! Congress has the power to tax or not to tax. The 2010 Congress taxed; the 2017 Congress eliminated the tax. Weee!
But wait, there's more: Who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional? Not Congress. Congress can't rule anything unconstitutional, only the courts can. Did Judge O'Connor rule it unconstitutional? How could he? The Supreme Court found it constitutional. Is O’Connor ruling that NOT having an individual mandate is UNconstitutional? Maybe Chief WaPo didn't write that article (on which this here post is based) too good because this is hard to make sense of. Or maybe Texas judges don't do logic or constitutional law too good. WaPo says it was "a recent change in federal tax law," a simple act of Congress reversing a previous act of Congress. If the argument was, "The Republican congress 'in effect' ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional by repealing it"...No, that still doesn't make sense. A change in tax law means every tax law previous was unconstitutional? No. And Congress cannot do anything "in effect" unconstitutional. I don't know man, some illogical, unconstitutional argument like that swayed Judge O'Connor and he wrote a 55-page opinion on it.
And on that note, here's to your health, good night.
That...does not follow logically. That is the fallacy of reversibility. Logically, A causes B causes C does not mean C causes B causes A. Congress did not eliminate the individual mandate; it eliminated the financial penalty for not obeying the mandate. The whole issue in the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The Supremes settled the constitutionality of the mandate and of the tax penalty. There can be no other constitutional challenge to the mandate or the "tax." So removing the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the mandate logically settled the constitutionality of Obamacare.
The Republican Congress then came around in 2017 and eliminated the tax penalty. They left the rest of the law, including the individual mandate, untouched. They can do that! Congress has the power to tax or not to tax. The 2010 Congress taxed; the 2017 Congress eliminated the tax. Weee!
But wait, there's more: Who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional? Not Congress. Congress can't rule anything unconstitutional, only the courts can. Did Judge O'Connor rule it unconstitutional? How could he? The Supreme Court found it constitutional. Is O’Connor ruling that NOT having an individual mandate is UNconstitutional? Maybe Chief WaPo didn't write that article (on which this here post is based) too good because this is hard to make sense of. Or maybe Texas judges don't do logic or constitutional law too good. WaPo says it was "a recent change in federal tax law," a simple act of Congress reversing a previous act of Congress. If the argument was, "The Republican congress 'in effect' ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional by repealing it"...No, that still doesn't make sense. A change in tax law means every tax law previous was unconstitutional? No. And Congress cannot do anything "in effect" unconstitutional. I don't know man, some illogical, unconstitutional argument like that swayed Judge O'Connor and he wrote a 55-page opinion on it.
And on that note, here's to your health, good night.
