Talk:Texas Attorney General triumphant over healthcare ruling

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ballotpedia RSS.jpg
This page is part of WikiProject News, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to news and election coverage.

If you have any questions, comments or would like to volunteer on this project please e-mail

Flag of Texas.png
This page is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to Texas.

To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page or contribute to the project discussion.

Incorrect reading of the opposition's take-away

I'd like to understand how you came up with the following statement: "those who opposed the law, including the group of attorneys general who instigated the legal challenge, felt likewise redeemed insofar as two key provisos determined by the Supreme Court as necessary to the overall preservation of the law.[4] For one, the court ruled to limit the federal government's authority to require states to participate in the coming Medicaid expansion. Second, the individual mandate failed to stand up to constitutional vetting vis a vis the Commerce Clause, and therefore would survive in the form of a tax."

The two 'provisos' that 'those who opposed the law' took away as 'vindication' were not 'determined by the Supreme Court' as necessary to the overall preservation of the law'. They were determined to be unconstitutional and either stricken, or bound to reasonably well defined boundaries. Going through the ACA the majority agreed that there was no constitutional defense for the Federal Government to try and force the states to expand their participation in Medicaid. Stripping that out of the bill doesn't do anything to preserve any other part of the law. It just comes out. Deciding that the Commerce Clause has limits doesn't do anything for or against the 'preservation of the law', it just comes out. Take enough stuff out, and there's no bill left.

They managed to get creative with respect to the mandate in calling it a tax. But, by the constitution revenue bills are supposed to be initiated in the House. This wasn't.

Taxes are allowed under the constitution to raise money for specific purposes. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The stated purpose of the mandate is to convince everybody that they should get insurance. If everybody got insurance per the law, there would be no revenue raised. How does that serve to raise money to pay the nation's Debts? How does that pass constitutional muster?

Response to "Incorrect reading..."

Dear User:Faltschuler,

Thank you for your interest in the story and for taking the time to provide feedback. I have taken your input (above) into consideration, as well as the changes you applied to the article. Ballotpedia's writing guidelines prohibit staff members and non-staff contributors from endorsing or opposing any item featured on the website, be it a candidate, election, ballot measure, court ruling, et cetera, either through explicit language or tone, and it was not my intention to convey any sort of bias on the Supreme Court ruling.

The statement with which you took issue, that opponents of the law felt some degree of vindication from the court's decision, was not intended to serve as polemic or commentary to indicate that I supported the ruling, nor do I think it indicates misunderstanding. My report was a product of a standard, yet complex, process whereby multiple sources representing a variety of angles and positions on a given subject are condensed into a balanced summary. If my summary did not satisfy you, or did not achieve said balance, I apologize, although I suspect that your objection may stem from a basic semantic misunderstanding. The word "proviso," in the context of my statement about the stricken mandate and states' compulsory participation in the medicaid expansion, was meant to invoke precisely what your feedback aimed to correct--that is, the ruling contained "conditions." To the extent that severability was a lynchpin issue in the repeal effort, Roberts' decisive vote to uphold the law provided the individual mandate be converted into a tax, and provided the medicaid expansion be elective, points to a commitment to keeping some iteration of the law, as opposed striking it down in its entirety. I do not dispute the fact that Roberts' assessment divorced the individual mandate from the province of the Commerce Clause, nor did I suggest that in the article. I merely echoed the sentiments of many (though only one was mentioned by name) attorneys general who acted as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ACA, most of whom expressed mingled feelings in the wake of the ruling- disappointment, over the vote to uphold, but also buoyed, owing to the "provisos" or mitigating "conditions" under which it was upheld.

Notwithstanding their value, your comments on the outcome of the lawsuit belie a slight bias, which, for future reference (I invite you on behalf of Ballotpedia to continue contributing refreshing feedback and/or live content to the site) is unsuitable for publishing on the main pages of the wiki per the mission of Ballotpedia (See:Ballotpedia:Edit review process). Your feedback can, however, remain on this page, where it is available for public viewing and further alteration.

As for the edits you made to the article, they were well-measured and will likewise stand. Thank you for bringing the confusing syntax to my attention. Hopefully, with your revisions in place, the article is now up to the standard of clarity and balance I had sought in summarizing the ruling within the context of Abbot's reaction.

Thank you again for your input, and if you have any more comments or questions, feel free to contact me on my User talk page.



This discussion page has been protected from further postings.