The mandate has not been repealed. Rather, the penalty has been set to $0 starting next year. Texas el al are arguing that it is therefore no longer a tax (no revenue), and therefore unconstitutional. Not the stupidest argument I've ever heard. (That would be King v Burwell)
-
-
-
Thanks for clarifying
-
The point is still the same: The question of constitutionality (the only one that wasn't dismissed out of hand by the courts) was the mandate in the first place. So, getting rid of it, or zeroing it out, doesn't then make the rest unconstitutional.
-
IOW, declaring the mandate constitutional, didn't make the rest of the law constitutional. Declaring that—in practice—the mandate was just a tax, prevent the mandate from being declared unconstitutional & thus taking the rest of the law down w/ it.
-
A duly passed law is presumptively constitutional. Thus there is nothing to sue over unless pleading on a new issue is allowed by the court. Good luck with that.
-
This is exactly the problem. Ken Paxton doesn't believe in a presumption of constitutionality. He wants to bring back the Lochner doctrine, as do many Republicans in Texas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't try to talk reason to this asshole.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Drucker is correct. The question before the court was about the constitutionality of the mandate and the forced Medicaid expansion. Saying it was a tax "saved" Obamacare because everyone assumed the rest would collapse w/o it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You are 100% correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.