Alate_One
Well-known member
Yesterday's decision showed that at least two of the justices (Kennedy and Roberts) acted in a non-partisan manner. That was actually refreshing to see.
Explain to me how this works: It was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause yet constitutional under the tax clause. But...doesn't something only need to be shown to be unconstitutional according to one thing...for it to be unconstitutional?
No. The question is does the congress have the power to enact the ACA. You need to find support in the constitution for a particular piece of legislation. If it can't be supported by the commerce clause (which 4 of the justices said it could, and I think ridiculous to think it can't), it could be supported by another power in this case the power to tax. Since the mandate, that is the penalty is written as a tax, but just not called one. So long as there's no prohibition against the law (first amendment etc.), supporting the law with an alternative power is fine.