Ramesh Ponnuru believes that Justice Roberts has ignored the normative dimension of law:
The difference between a mandate and a tax is precisely the difference between, on one hand, a command that the citizen is morally obligated to obey and, on the other hand, a set of options open to the citizen that the government has merely structured through its announcement of its likely responses to his choice. With a mandate that incurs a penalty, the government is telling citizens that they must buy insurance. To fail to buy insurance is to break the law. In the case of a tax, conscientious citizens would have no such moral obligation. They would behave fully lawfully in not buying insurance, but they would have to pay extra to exercise that option. Similarly, they act perfectly lawfully in buying beer but have to pay sin taxes.
The key question in Chief Justice Roberts’s analysis was which of these things the government was trying to do in the Obamacare law. He chose to answer the question in precisely the wrong way: a way that guaranteed he would reach the wrong result.
Read why .
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…
