Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
Which is why Romney is a non-starter as a candidate.
The mandate was always wrong, even in taxachuesetts. Someone here who is a lawyer might be able to comment on if there is a difference between a Federal mandate, and a State one, though. It might well be legal on a State level, even if it is clearly wrong-headed to allow the state to compel citizens to engage in some arbitrary economic activity.
|
Not a lawyer yet Tater, however I am finishing up my first year of Law School.A state mandate such as the one in Mass is constitutional, but a Federal mandate is not.Simply put, the state's can do things the Fed government can not, which is the reason a state can require you to purchase car insurance if you have a vehicle registered in your name and if you do not, they can cancel your registration and/or suspend your license.The Fed's have no such power and anyone who simply reads the constitution while putting their political views aside can see this.Those who claim the Fed's do are stretching the commerce clause in what I can only see as an intellecutally dishonest manner to fit their agenda.Claiming that the Federal government has the power under the commerce clause to tax/fine someone who does not engage in commerce, ie purchase a service(health insurance) is rather outlandish.
I honestly lost what little respect I had for Obama when he allowed this to stand because for all things that he is, he is not a complete dumb arse, he taught con law(which is scary) and he knows the constitution, but he wanted that health care bill so bad, so he disregarded the constitution for suit his political agenda, which is just sad.