Legal scholars are already picking apart the judge's ruling:
Quote:
The key portion of the ruling reads:
"If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution."
Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."
|
I think that's a very valid point that's being raised.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...are-ruling.php