Don’t get any hopes up. This is not only uphill, it’s a huge long shot. To think any court will find this unconstitutional, I have three words for those who hope for it: Campaign Finance Reform (even though the Supremes did a good job recently with that, but look at how long it took to undercut a bad decision). Trying to pin hopes on a court is ridiculous.
A court is likely to say that since this was voted upon by elected members of Congress, the “people” were not denied anything. They were in fact “represented” by their elected representatives.
Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t this have to go through the liberal DC circuit courts and a long string of judicial reviews before the USSC will even look at it?
*****
Don’t get any hopes up. This is not only uphill, it’s a huge long shot. To think any court will find this unconstitutional, I have three words for those who hope for it: Campaign Finance Reform
*****
Great, more defeatism. In France, the successor of Marshal Petain will embrace you.
Here’s where it can be defeated legally, by attacking the most egregious part of the new law, (one of numerous egregious parts)
specifically,
where in the Constitution — which was created to enumerate the people’s rights and to limit the authority the government can wield — does it say that Congress can make a law that mandates that the people must buy a product or a service?
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows that. And there are many places in the Constitution that suggest the government has no such authority.
That is clearly the most unconstitutional part of this. Anyone who can read English should know that. IMHO.
-George
No, it’s a question of the Constitution and what the 10th amendment means. THAT’S the issue - nothing else.