I've read all that and can certainly appreciate where they're coming from.
But he's so wrong. Healthcare insurance is NOT interstate commerce. It is by LAW not allowed to be INTERSTATE. Tort reform? Yeah, they choose not to go down that route, so how the hell can they use the interstate commerce clause to justify forcing people to buy health insurance?
As far as I'm concerned they're using the Commerce Clause to justify forcing people to buy healthcare insurance and it simply doesn't fly.
It doesn't fly because refraining from purchasing insurance is by definition
not engaging in commerce and FedGov has no right to mandate a lack of commerce.
Otherwise, you have to float the stupid idea that merely being alive is somehow interstate commerce and then there would be no limit to the commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything you(speaking to Americans) do, which clearly is not the intention of the clause.
I think you're all forgetting what this 'fine' actually is. It IS a tax on living. People are going to be punished for choosing not to do something.
Here is what Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown had to say about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031901470.html
In regards to the 10th amendment. From the same article.
I dare someone to make this a black and white issue. Because you have respected Georgetown Law professors saying its a VERY grey area, to the extent that the Supreme Court could force the Democrats to ratify it, and Erwin Chemernisky, another highly respected constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional.