n, Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis of judgement. The standard counter argument is: "It is only dictum (or dicta)".
IN OTHER WORDS (THE FOX IS IN THE HEN HOUSE) ... THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING CONGRESS FROM ELIMINATING OR MODIFYING THE LAW OR THE IMPOSED TAX; THEREFORE CHOKING THE LIFE OUT OF THE OBJECT OF THE DICTUM. NOW THE SHOE MAY FIT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLETE THE MARATHON.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THE AHCA ... THE VOTERS AND NATION SHOULD BE REMINDED OF JUST HOW OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ENACTED THIS HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL. IT WAS ENACTED WITH LEGISLATIVE BRIBES, USING ARCANE CONGRESSIONAL RULES, AND WITHOUT A SHRED OF BIPARTISANSHIP. HOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WALKED INTO THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY WITH THEIR EYES WIDE SHUT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE FACT 'THEY' ARE THE MOST IGNORANT ELECTORATE IN THE FREE WORLD.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause.
- the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments"; and,
- prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare. In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.
- James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax. It should be noted that the requisite threshold of nine states for ratification of the constitution had already been met by the time Virginia ratified, and eight states had already ratified before the specific paper in which Madison made this argument  was published in bound form . Before this time, they had only been published irregularly outside of New York, which itself ratified after Virgina. While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders, they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[dubious ]
- Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
THIS ISSUE ISN'T OVER YET ... NOT BY A LONG SHOT!