Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Silly Hypothetical Or Telling Response

The NYTimes called this question "a seemingly silly hypothetical."




FLG, however, disagrees.  He has a problem with a candidate who cannot say the commerce clause does not give the government the power to mandate that people eat fruits and vegetables.  Now, FLG understands that one could then ask why an individual mandate to buy health insurance is any different, and, well, you'd better have an answer that makes sense.

Also, the NYTimes editorial in question also has this:
Lawmakers, anticipating the challenge, explicitly inserted a line in the law that the insurance mandate “substantially affects interstate commerce.” They also say it is based on the government’s fundamental power to tax. It is hard to see how the current court will disagree.

Regardless of the merits, FLG somehow doubts that including the assertion that a law substantially affects interstate commerce is some sort of sufficient protection. It's akin to including a statement at the beginning that says "Congress thinks this law is constitutional," which is already implicit in every bill that it passes.

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.