.......The plaintiffs — state attorneys general and two governors — claim that the insurance mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.......
In typical kneejerk fashion, FReepers yell RINO and give no further thought to what was actually said. They disregard all of the conservative credentialed disclaimer statements included.
The reason given for the likely failure to repeal is the commerce clause. It seems to be not only reasonable view but actually likely. If the only specific reasons given for repeal are related to interstate commerce, I think repeal is likely.
There are several others questioned and those are likely to cause the offensive law to be repealed in total. The ruling will note that if the commerce clause is to have effect, a law must allow insurers to truly engage in interstate commerce and sell across state lines
“The ruling will note that if the commerce clause is to have effect, a law must allow insurers to truly engage in interstate commerce and sell across state lines”
YES!! A person who gets it!
To MAKE REGULAR! The word “regulate” in the time of the writing of the constitution meant to make regular. It now has been bastardized to add the meaning to “control by government.”