Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a certain superficial logic to Texas’s case: Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax in 2012; the mandate “tax” no longer exists after the Republican tax bill was passed; ergo, the mandate can no longer be considered constitutional as a tax.
But I spoke with both a liberal and a libertarian legal scholar on Friday who said that as a matter of law, that argument is “absurd” and “ludicrous.”
The whole case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too]
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say
congress passed a law, the tax legislation, repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place. So, clearly, Congress intended in the tax bill to eliminate the mandate penalty while keeping the ACA’s insurance reforms. That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does.
“It is ludicrous to argue Congress intended that those two provisions can’t stand without the mandate. Congress passed a statute doing precisely that,” Abbe Gluck, a Yale University law professor who has followed Obamacare litigation for years, told me Friday. “Congress itself is the one who took the mandate out. They clearly thought it was okay to take out the mandate and leave those two provisions standing.”
She isn’t the only one who thinks so. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian legal scholar who has supported prior legal challenges to Obamacare, shared the same view.
He described it like a math problem. Yes, Congress A passed the mandate and the insurance reforms together, to work together. But Congress B just repealed the mandate and kept the insurance rules. Congress revises its laws all the time, and the most recent revision is the proper way to understand how Congress intends the law to work. And with that understanding, the new conservative argument doesn’t hold up.
“Because Congress A claimed this provision (as originally enacted) was an essential component to the broader scheme, plaintiffs claim this still applies to the subsequent revision (even though Congress B didn’t say so), and thereby want the whole statute to go down. That’s just absurd,” he said by email.
Continuation of quote:
congress passed a law, the tax legislation, repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place. So, clearly, Congress intended in the tax bill to eliminate the mandate penalty while keeping the ACA’s insurance reforms. That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does.
“It is ludicrous to argue Congress intended that those two provisions can’t stand without the mandate. Congress passed a statute doing precisely that,” Abbe Gluck, a Yale University law professor who has followed Obamacare litigation for years, told me Friday. “Congress itself is the one who took the mandate out. They clearly thought it was okay to take out the mandate and leave those two provisions standing.”
She isn’t the only one who thinks so. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian legal scholar who has supported prior legal challenges to Obamacare, shared the same view.
He described it like a math problem. Yes, Congress A passed the mandate and the insurance reforms together, to work together. But Congress B just repealed the mandate and kept the insurance rules. Congress revises its laws all the time, and the most recent revision is the proper way to understand how Congress intends the law to work. And with that understanding, the new conservative argument doesn’t hold up.
“Because Congress A claimed this provision (as originally enacted) was an essential component to the broader scheme, plaintiffs claim this still applies to the subsequent revision (even though Congress B didn’t say so), and thereby want the whole statute to go down. That’s just absurd,” he said by email.
A link to where you are getting your quotes would be helpful.Admittedly I was worried at first with the completely partisan DOJ supporting the latest lawsuit to strip away these ACA provisions. Now I feel more at ease. As always, republican policy against ACA fails.
There is a certain superficial logic to Texas’s case: Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax in 2012; the mandate “tax” no longer exists after the Republican tax bill was passed; ergo, the mandate can no longer be considered constitutional as a tax.
But I spoke with both a liberal and a libertarian legal scholar on Friday who said that as a matter of law, that argument is “absurd” and “ludicrous.”
The whole case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too]
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say
A link to where you are getting your quotes would be helpful.
Oh shit i forgot the link. I’ll editA link to where you are getting your quotes would be helpful.Admittedly I was worried at first with the completely partisan DOJ supporting the latest lawsuit to strip away these ACA provisions. Now I feel more at ease. As always, republican policy against ACA fails.
There is a certain superficial logic to Texas’s case: Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax in 2012; the mandate “tax” no longer exists after the Republican tax bill was passed; ergo, the mandate can no longer be considered constitutional as a tax.
But I spoke with both a liberal and a libertarian legal scholar on Friday who said that as a matter of law, that argument is “absurd” and “ludicrous.”
The whole case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too]
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say
It's all good, we all forget stuff. It's a good topic.Oh shit i forgot the link. I’ll editA link to where you are getting your quotes would be helpful.Admittedly I was worried at first with the completely partisan DOJ supporting the latest lawsuit to strip away these ACA provisions. Now I feel more at ease. As always, republican policy against ACA fails.
There is a certain superficial logic to Texas’s case: Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax in 2012; the mandate “tax” no longer exists after the Republican tax bill was passed; ergo, the mandate can no longer be considered constitutional as a tax.
But I spoke with both a liberal and a libertarian legal scholar on Friday who said that as a matter of law, that argument is “absurd” and “ludicrous.”
The whole case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too]
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say
I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
Lawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
You're a sheepLawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
Have some humility that experts know more than you do about something. I would love to see you debate a constitutional scholar. It would be hilarious lolYou're a sheepLawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
You know nothing about my background. The irony of your post ... lolHave some humility that experts know more than you do about something. I would love to see you debate a constitutional scholar. It would be hilarious lolYou're a sheepLawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.Actually it's a very solid argument. Roberts specifically upheld the law based on the contorted argument that the ACA was a tax because of the penalty. Without the penalty, it's not a tax anymore. Genius argument.
Then again, Roberts contorted the Constitution before for his own purposes, he's going to do it again. We're still Ginsburg's heartbeat away from undoing that monstrosity and all the damage it's doing to the country. Imagine how our economy would be doing without that anchor. It would be the Democrat's worst nightmare. No wonder you're so desperate to fight it
It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
I already know you aren’t a legal expert of any kind.You know nothing about my background. The irony of your post ... lolHave some humility that experts know more than you do about something. I would love to see you debate a constitutional scholar. It would be hilarious lolYou're a sheepLawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.I find it bizarre you think you understand the constitution better.
It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
I already know you aren’t a legal expert of any kind.You know nothing about my background. The irony of your post ... lolHave some humility that experts know more than you do about something. I would love to see you debate a constitutional scholar. It would be hilarious lolYou're a sheepLawyers are the only ones that fully understand it lol. You don’t know more than them and neither do I.It was written to be clear. That lawyers contort it so much is what's fucked up
And to think , all of these contstant court battles for 225 years...when all we could have done was ring up your trailer park and ask for you to save all this time ...And again, the constitution was written to be direc
I always like the poor jokes from you idiots. You dont want government handouts because you're poor, kaz! Kaching!And to think , all of these contstant court battles for 225 years...when all we could have done was ring up your trailer park and ask for you to save all this time ...And again, the constitution was written to be direc
Go ahead,have a good cry, get it all out. When you are done, you are going to have to face the fact that what you said earlier is painful fucking stupid and you should shut up immeditely.I always like the poor jokes from you idiots. You dont want government handouts because you're poor, kaz! Kaching!And to think , all of these contstant court battles for 225 years...when all we could have done was ring up your trailer park and ask for you to save all this time ...And again, the constitution was written to be direc
Idiot
