Quote:
Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions.
From Roberts opinion, makes me sleep a little easier. Actually a lot of what is written in respect to the commerce clause is pretty good stuff. A government mandate to purchase goods from the private sector never sat well with me. Especially since I felt it set a dangerous precedent. The idea of purchasing healthcare wasn't as offensive, but it was one of those loopholes I was never very comfortable with.
Quote:
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.
Crafty Democrats, always finding novel ways to raise taxes...
Also
linky, just because it's not linked everywhere or something...
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 9:55am by someproteinguy 
