Nat'l Journal: Republicans Close to Violating the Constitution

[RiverNoord]

47. Um... that's a completely legitimate point

Think 'separate but equal,' segregation, Dred Scott, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986 - anti-'sodomy' laws are constitutional) vs Lawrence v. Texas (2003 - anti-'sodomy' laws are unconstitutional), well, the list goes on and on.

I am deeply liberal and I think the ACA will is a very, very good step in the right direction and will be very good for the country. However, I'm also a lawyer, and, frankly, I still have very serious reservations about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. It would be well within Congress's spending power to establish a national health care system. However, taxing people simply for not buying health insurance is different. It means that the federal government could directly tax its citizens for not owning a firearm, not buying houses, not getting married, not allowing the NSA to install cameras on their property, even though the NSA has no constitutional right to do so - you could still tax people for not allowing it - anything that could be sold as a legitimate government purpose - there's really no American precedent for taxing people for simply not buying something or just not doing something that is not imposed by the Constitution as an affirmative duty - and there aren't very many of those.

Anyway, the argument that the ACA individual mandate is unconstitutional isn't settled by one Supreme Court decision - our history has demonstrated many, many times that things that are flagrantly unconstitutional get upheld by the Supreme Court.