Legal analysis ping!
Hmmmm, I thought the RATS were saying this was Constitutional because of the Commerce clause. IMHO the Constitution trumps the Commerce clause. You can’t force people to buy something. I think the states are drawing a line in the sand and saying not more.
Not mention here is this act, passed during the Clinton administration where any unfunded mandate costing $50M or more ordered by congress for a state or business to follow must go through the CBO (congressional budget office) to be evaluated and monies set aside for its funding for approval by vote.
But UFMA has so many exceptions in it that it would take a constitutional lawyer capable of aruging before the Supreme Court, which is where this is going, to explain it.
Much of the Healthcare act has these mandates in it. When these birds drafted this bill they did take some of those exceptions into consideration. To get a gist of what the bill covers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481726/posts
note the comments from members that follow particularly by the respondents who are lawyers commenting about taking this thing into court when comparing it with the language of the Healthcare Reform Act. The current comments (past court rulings etc) are here
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04637.pdf
The Constitutional Initial Point is becoming popular....finally.
What would that be?? I am really interested.
ping for later read.