[exit82]

Would you not agree this is a strictly constitutional decision? In other words, Justice Roberts agreed that it’s outside the reach of the Commerce Clause but not outside Congress’s constitutionally-granted power to tax?

If the word "tax" is not in the bill, how can the Supreme Court deem a fee a tax--a tax which forces you to buy a product as a condition of your liberty? That is unprecedented.

You can tax an activity or an item you posses, but you cannot use a tax to force commerce, and then take away a person's libert as a means to force that commerce.

I don't know how you reconcile the mandate does not work under the commerce clause and then say the taxing power can be used to create commerce.

This is complete bullsh!t.

[Darnright]

>If the word “tax” is not in the bill, how can the Supreme Court deem a fee a tax—a tax which forces you to buy a product as a condition of your liberty? That is unprecedented.

You can tax an activity or an item you posses, but you cannot use a tax to force commerce, and then take away a person’s libert as a means to force that commerce.

I don’t know how you reconcile the mandate does not work under the commerce clause and then say the taxing power can be used to create commerce.

This is complete bullsh!t.<

That’s what is so confusing, but remember, this thing is such a behemoth of a bill that the language calling the mandate a tax could have been hidden in the depths heaven knows where.

Remember Pelousy told us they’d have to pass the darn thing before anyone would know what was in it.