Posted on 05/12/2010 5:11:25 PM PDT by Nachum
“”Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy,” said the government’s brief. “After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and re-ignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall.””
Is their argument then that they did,in their eyes,something ‘good’ for the people so legality be damned?
Why else insert the word tragedy, which is subjective,into what should should be an objective argument?
I had a long dissertation posted a while back. Insurance is a service and does not fall under the commerce clause.
So once the forced purchase of insurance is found unconstitutional (and I pray it is, because otherwise, it’s gonna get ugly), can we use the precedent to opt out of the purchase of the government mandated retirement annuity called Social Security?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.