I want to done this one before 12 hours The ACA after being written by the Executive Branch, passed by the legislative branch was ultimately affirmed by the Judicial branch as being constitutional pursuant to the authority contained in the United States Constitution. The initial rulings from the appellate courts determined that the act of expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional and concluded that the individual mandate provision exceeded congressional authority and was not severable and declared the entire Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed as to the unconstitutionality of individual mandate, reversed determination of non-severability and affirmed as to constitutionality of Medicaid expansion. The Federal Government possesses limited power with the people and the states having the remainder. The constitutional enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers in that the Federal Government can only exercise the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and while the federal government may restrict states but where such prohibitions do not exist the states do not need constitutional authority. Under the Commerce Clause of the constitution congress may regulate channels of interstate commerce, persons or things. As such the taxing clause gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot regulate authorize, forbid, or otherwise control. In exercising spending power congress may offer funds to the states and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions it could not otherwise impose. The individual mandate in the ACA imposing minimum individual coverage requirement under commerce clause exceeded congressional power. Individual mandate did not regulate existing commercial activity and it instead required individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground their failure to do so affected interstate commerce Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government requires that the court strike down an Act of congress only if the lack of constitutional authority to pass the act in question is clearly demonstrated. (Must respect and maintain separation of powers) Therefore members of the Supreme Court are only vested with the authority to interpret law not make policy judgments. As it relates to taxing authority the anti injunction act is inapplicable to the individual mandate of Obamacare though it specified that the ACA shared responsibility payment for not complying with mandate shall be assessed and collected in same manner as an assessable penalty under the Internal revenue code. Therefore congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congress can describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax. The exaction that the ACA imposed on those without insurance through the ACAs shared responsibility payment was a tax for purposes of congressional taxing power, though described as a penalty rather than a tax and was intended to affect an individual conduct that the constitution does not otherwise allow for. The Supreme Court made that determination because it was payable to the treasury for tax payments when filing their tax returns and it did not apply to individuals who were not required to pay due to (thresholds). In addition the payment requirement was found in the internal revenue code and enforced by the IRS which assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes and neither the law nor the ACA attached negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance beyond requiring a to the IRS. The essential feature of any tax is that it produces at least some revenue for the government. Every tax is in some measure regulatory and to some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the activity taxed as compared to others not taxed. Further in asking whether an exaction falls within congressional taxing power the court may disregard the designation of the exaction and view its substance and application. In distinguishing penalties from taxes if the concept of penalty means anything it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission and the question of constitutionality of action taken by congress does not depend on recitals of the power it undertakes to exercise. 1. Explain how the penalty clause of the ACA enables it to influence the states conduct in a manner that the constitution does not expressly allow? 2. What was the basis upon which that the Supreme Court determined the ACA was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause? 3. What is it about the Anti Injunction Act that makes it inapplicable to the ACA? 4. Does every action taken by the Federal Government upon the States require that those actions be expressly stated in the Constitution? Explain. 5. Why is the penalty or tax associated with the individual mandate act of the ACA not considered a punishment for the commission of an unlawful act?

I want to done this one before 12 hours The ACA after being written by the Executive Branch, passed by the legislative branch was ultimately affirmed by the Judicial branch as being constitutional pursuant to the authority contained in the United States Constitution. The initial rulings from the appellate courts determined that the act of expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional and concluded that the individual mandate provision exceeded congressional authority and was not severable and declared the entire Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed as to the unconstitutionality of individual mandate, reversed determination of non-severability and affirmed as to constitutionality of Medicaid expansion. The Federal Government possesses limited power with the people and the states having the remainder. The constitutional enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers in that the Federal Government can only exercise the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and while the federal government may restrict states but where such prohibitions do not exist the states do not need constitutional authority. Under the Commerce Clause of the constitution congress may regulate channels of interstate commerce, persons or things. As such the taxing clause gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot regulate authorize, forbid, or otherwise control. In exercising spending power congress may offer funds to the states and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions it could not otherwise impose. The individual mandate in the ACA imposing minimum individual coverage requirement under commerce clause exceeded congressional power. Individual mandate did not regulate existing commercial activity and it instead required individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground their failure to do so affected interstate commerce Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government requires that the court strike down an Act of congress only if the lack of constitutional authority to pass the act in question is clearly demonstrated. (Must respect and maintain separation of powers) Therefore members of the Supreme Court are only vested with the authority to interpret law not make policy judgments. As it relates to taxing authority the anti injunction act is inapplicable to the individual mandate of Obamacare though it specified that the ACA shared responsibility payment for not complying with mandate shall be assessed and collected in same manner as an assessable penalty under the Internal revenue code. Therefore congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congress can describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax. The exaction that the ACA imposed on those without insurance through the ACAs shared responsibility payment was a tax for purposes of congressional taxing power, though described as a penalty rather than a tax and was intended to affect an individual conduct that the constitution does not otherwise allow for. The Supreme Court made that determination because it was payable to the treasury for tax payments when filing their tax returns and it did not apply to individuals who were not required to pay due to (thresholds). In addition the payment requirement was found in the internal revenue code and enforced by the IRS which assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes and neither the law nor the ACA attached negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance beyond requiring a to the IRS. The essential feature of any tax is that it produces at least some revenue for the government. Every tax is in some measure regulatory and to some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the activity taxed as compared to others not taxed. Further in asking whether an exaction falls within congressional taxing power the court may disregard the designation of the exaction and view its substance and application. In distinguishing penalties from taxes if the concept of penalty means anything it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission and the question of constitutionality of action taken by congress does not depend on recitals of the power it undertakes to exercise. 1. Explain how the penalty clause of the ACA enables it to influence the states conduct in a manner that the constitution does not expressly allow? 2. What was the basis upon which that the Supreme Court determined the ACA was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause? 3. What is it about the Anti Injunction Act that makes it inapplicable to the ACA? 4. Does every action taken by the Federal Government upon the States require that those actions be expressly stated in the Constitution? Explain. 5. Why is the penalty or tax associated with the individual mandate act of the ACA not considered a punishment for the commission of an unlawful act?