Second, the Framers could of course be alarmed by both. What they most certainly would not be is alarmed by is solely a minor tax to compel an important societal behavior that benefits citizen and society alike by minimizing catastrophic medical costs. The Framers included no express limits whatsoever on Federal power to regulate commerce; indeed, they specifically granted that power, plus taxing power, plus deliberately expansive “general welfare” power. In contrast, the Framers established several express limits on detention and prosecution, including, by name, “probable cause” and “due process.”

Watching a bunch of Guantanamo supporters cry about the Constitution is, shall we say, amusing.

Exactly the opposite. Roe was bad because it does not, IMHO, follow sound constitutional principles. I do think that states should not prohibit abortions, but I don’t think the constitution stops them from doing so. The health care decision was good because there is some constitutional basis to it.

The federal government (and state and local governments) can do a lot of things. Whether it should do them is a totally different matter.

This should not be a debate on whether the ACA is good or bad. It is a debate on whether the ACA is constitutional and it is.

Pure sophistry @ 4:30, plus a whole lot of flawed accounting. You can do better that such weak gruel.

My point being that if they can twist the individual mandate to procure a privately provided service to be a so called tax, when it clearly isn’t*, then they (and by “they” I mean a President, Congress and the Supreme Court) can twist a mandate to buy any privately provided consumer good as a tax. I merely pointed out some items that are, in fact, consumer goods no different than medical care or a prepaid medical plan (which is, in fact, what most so called “health insurance” is). I also posited the excuses they could claim to justify mandating buying said goods.

Pick what ever you want as a consumer item, even broccoli. By the logic of this decision, substitute broccoli for health insurance and they can mandate you buy it.

If this was in fact a tax, it would be structured as one. They’d take money (at the point of a gun) from the Citizens, filter it through a huge, inefficient, wasteful bureaucracy in DC, and it would come out the other side in Federally run hospitals and government paid doctors or via Medicare / Medicaid. It doesn’t do this. Therefor, it’s not a tax. Instead, a gun is pointed at the head of the citizen and they’re commanded to buy a product from a private vendor or else. That sir, is not a tax. That is a mandate, period. QED.

Today is a dark day in the history of the Republic. This decision will be cursed by our children as a major slide into a totalitarian state that pries into every minute detail of our lives under the excuse of “health care”.

* – Ted, the beauty of being an engineer is that I’m forced to live in the real world of how things actually work, not a fantasy construct of how things ought to be that too many lawyers live in. Tax? My @$$. It’s spit on the face of Lady Liberty, not makeup, and no amount of sophistry can change the fact.

The thing is. The mandate is constitutional, pure and simple. Unlike Roe v. Wade, there is some semblance of reasoning (from the concurring opinions) to support the conclusion, i.e., finding the federal government had the authority to pass the law. I like the result of Roe v. Wade, but I cannot think of a logical defense of it.

Don’t like the law? Then do what should have been done in the first place, elect 218 representatives, 60 senators, and one president and repeal it. Good luck with that. On the other hand, if you don’t like Roe v. Wade, you are stuck.

I think the CJ was right to find some way to find the law was constitutional.

That can’t be what you mean. When I cut my finger slicing a bagel, the hospital that examined me profited from my injury. Are you seriously claiming I have a cause of action against the hospital? Or just against the bagel and knife manufacturers?