on PolicyMic
Stephen B. Presser I can only agree with the implications of both of your questions; which require no further response. Well-done.
Stephen B. Presser Your point is well-taken, but the issue here, as Mr. Patterson and others have suggested, is whether this particular action by Congress - compelling participation in the interstate market for health insurance -- exceeds what Congress is permitted to do under the commerce clause. While some of our governments do force us to pay for things we don't want, the issue here is if the Congress can do this; is there anything they can't do, and does allowing this Act to be upheld fundamentally defeat our system of federalism and a limited federal government as required by the 10th Amendment.
on PolicyMic
Stephen B. Presser I can only agree with the implications of both of your questions; which require no further response. Well-done.
Stephen B. Presser Your point is well-taken, but the issue here, as Mr. Patterson and others have suggested, is whether this particular action by Congress - compelling participation in the interstate market for health insurance -- exceeds what Congress is permitted to do under the commerce clause. While some of our governments do force us to pay for things we don't want, the issue here is if the Congress can do this; is there anything they can't do, and does allowing this Act to be upheld fundamentally defeat our system of federalism and a limited federal government as required by the 10th Amendment.