----------
I am not sure if you will even do this, but I would like
these comments provided to the Justices in regards to the case referenced in
the subject line. I hope that you
will pass this along.
======
In reading the decision that was issued on this case
regarding the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, I am disturbed by
the precedent set in this matter.
By your decision, you have given Congress overreaching
taxing authority on all Americans.
By this, I mean, that if Congress were to decide to pass legislation
that, for example, imposed a direct tax on the citizens for not smoking, by the
precedent you have issued in this case, that would be a constitutionally
allowed tax.
Allowing Congress to literally tax citizens for not doing
something is a slippery slope that could potentially be abused in the
future. In cases where states have
been "encouraged" to legislate certain desires of Congress, as in
your reference in the opinion that Congress withheld funds from states for
roads unless they raised the legal limit for drinking to 21, is not a good
analogy. This is an example of
reducing an entitlement that Congress granted to the states for not doing
something. But in the case at
hand, or in other situations as the hypothetical provided above, this is not
reducing an entitlement but penalizing individuals for not doing something.
In addition, the Affordable Care Act does view not paying
the penalty as a criminal act, in that it allows the IRS to confiscate future
funds that the individual is entitled to as a tax refund. Tax refunds are essentially a return of
funds over collected and that the Government was not entitled to and are the
property of the taxpayer.
Therefore, creating a situation that any individual that fails to pay
the penalty will have a seizure of property at a future date - this is in line
with the penalties associated with the criminal behavior of underpaying or not
paying taxes owed.
The decision in regards to the Commerce Clause that it does
not grant Congress the ability to force someone to engage in Commerce is a very
clear point, but you invalidated that same portion of the decision by saying
that Congress could tax you for not engaging in Commerce. The two points are linked and should
not be severed from one another. Saying that Congress can't force someone to
buy something but can tax them for that same inaction is applying two
variations to the same set of facts and circumstances. I do not believe that the framers of
the Constitution would have accepted an argument that you can tax someone for
not doing something. The
discussion regarding a poll tax is also, in my opinion, a flawed concept. To be able to pay a poll tax, you must
be alive and breathing - therefore you are doing something, living. And this is the extreme example. The intent of the poll taxes in the
early days was that it was easier to tax people based on being there than
tracking their income or property.
Now that is not a problem with the reporting and information available
in comparison to the time the Constitution was written. Circumstances change, which is why
income taxes were created to replace poll taxes. Though there is another large
discussion that could be had in regards to income taxes, I will leave that for
another day.
I urge you, therefore, to reconsider this decision. I understand that based on your ruling,
no action can be brought, but that is only because you reinterpreted the
penalty as a tax. If you take up a
reconsideration of the matter and reverse your decision and call this a
penalty, then the Anti-Injunction Act would not apply again.
I thank you in advance for at least reading these comments,
even if you decide not to reconsider the matter. I pray for your good judgement and that God will guide your
decisions, as the framers of the Constitution were led by him.
No comments:
Post a Comment