[XenaLee]

The law itself may be constitutional, but the enforcement of the law isn’t.

How can a law be constitutional but the enforcement of that same law not be constitutional? You are illogical. (I smell a leftie)

Riddle me this. How is it that the very same opponents of the AZ law enforcement, claiming that it's unconstitutional..... are perfectly ok/fine with the blatantly unconstitutional law mandating that Americans (except for Muslimes and illegals) must purchase health insurance? Care to take a stab at explaining that?

[reagandemocrat]

I was mocking Eric Holder’s anticipated legal analysis—

should have “/s” I guess.

[reagandemocrat]

“How is it that the very same opponents of the AZ law enforcement, claiming that it’s unconstitutional..... are perfectly ok/fine with the blatantly unconstitutional law mandating that Americans (except for Muslimes and illegals) must purchase health insurance? Care to take a stab at explaining that?”

Sure, see, since the Constitution is a flexible document that can adapt chameleon-like to the will of the social elite, and since the first amendment gives muslims and illegals the right to associate AND protects their religious freedom, it is unconstitutional to require them to pay for health insurance—you and I however, being FReepers, have no such rights, and therefore the mandate applies, even to the point where the federal govenment will have real time access to our business and personal accounts.

(I’m channeling Eric Holder again)