CaneBrain, on 29 June 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:
This is also incorrect. They made both arguments during oral argument.BG, kids are covered until 26 now. One of the more popular provisions.
Taxes was a secondary fallback argument, completely separate from the Commerce argument, while both arguments were presented. It was supplied as an attempt to uphold the law on a technicality, as the court is required to use any possible interpretation that could be constitutional rather than maintaining the law on what it was actually intended to do. I just finished reading the full report and there is specific language that talks about how they accept that the point of the law isnt to be interpreted as a tax, but because it is the only way to interpret the law without violating the constitution they have to adopt that interpretation. Ill try to post specifically what I was reading from the report.I'm no law expert, and im 100% sure someone can write a 25 page essay on why it is neccessary, but this notion of being able to change your argument after your argument fails just seems a little ridiculous, like someone pleading not guilty, and when the evidence is presented, changing to not guilty by mental defect, I guess the courts have no problem with such a scenario but it just seems a bit too much.This specifically causes are problem with the supreme court, in a case of changing arguements/plea of not guilty to not guilty by mental defect, the prosecution simply has more work to prove their case, in the supreme court however there specifically is the requirement that the court MUST ignore the intentions of congress if their intention is unconstitutional and instead actively search for a way that a(any) law can be interpreted as constitutional, even if the intention of congress is to act in an unconstitutional way. It also creates a precedent that it becomes beneficial for congress to simply use a broad stroke with the commerce clause or other powers, then argue multiple vantage points in hopes that when their original intent is deemed unconstititutional, they can fall back to an interpretation that isnt remotely near their intent.You combine this with the new precendent that congress now has to authority to regulate all actions(inaction and action) of commerce and this becomes a huge power grab for congress, nearly anything can now become a "unique market" that congress needs to take over and regulate or force people to engage in commerce with.