all the other poster can do is scratch his head and say the 10th wasn’t one of the major arguments brought before SCOTUS or argued in the media, so it must not apply.
Fair enough. Do you have another explanation as to why a 10th Amendment challenge was not tried in court?
“Do you have another explanation as to why a 10th amendment challenge was not tried in court?”
I believe it was, at least implicitly. Any time you argue for something as unconstitutional due to a lack of positive power on the part of the feds it is basically a 10th amendment argument. Saying the commerce clause doesn’t apply because nit having bought insurance coverage is not a regulatable activity is in essence a 10 th amendment argument.
If it isn’t explicitly invoked, that’s because it’s sorta pro forma. There shouldn’t be a 10th amendment in the first place, as you can get the same idea from simply reading the Constitution and understanding the mechanism. All the 10th does is spell it out, and even that wasn’t too much to easily ignore.
There’s also the presumption of constitutionality, like I said. SCOTUS would probably start throwing things at you if you went line by line through the bill saying “this isn’t mentioned in the Constitution...this isn’t mentioned in the Constitution...this isn’t...” Unless it’s one of the aforementioned usual exceptions or so painfully obvious as not having bought insurance not being interstate commerce, they let it be.