nikoloslvy1041I’m basing my oral argument on Landmark Leagal’s brief:
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Legal%20Foundation%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
My understanding is that they claim that the employer mandate must fall into a criteria of proper authority for taxation. It must either be a direct tax (which must be apportioned amongst the states) an excise tax (based on activity) or an income tax (which it clearly isn’t).
According to Landmark it can not be an excise tax because there is no activity however can employment alone be considered ceaseless activity? is the act of employing someone alone activity? if not what is the precedence proving it.
Of course i understand that modern law is based on precedence on top of precedence of bad law but for a legal class this is the hoops that I must jump through. Of course the founders never intended for inactivity to be taxed but after years of trampling on the constitution using bad precedence I worry that the court may actually be able to legally get away with it.
Again, does the act of employment alone constitute activity?