Two Years On: Obamacare

Not just the content of the oral arguments. Look at the structure.

If the "it's a tax" argument was getting any traction, they wouldn't have gotten it out of the way quickly on the first day of three.

 

FYI, the Star of David has six points.

 

I don't agree.

 

It's just two, interlocking triangles.

 

It sure seems like you're saying there are no constitutional limits on Congress' power to make any law it wants.

As Rick said much earlier in this discussion, if that's what this Constitution really says, we need a better one.

 

That is not at all what I'm saying.

This is a very specific set of facts.

There are certainly cases where the power to tax or regulate commerce would butt against the Bill of Rights. For example, a mandate to subscribe to National Review would be of questionable constitutionality because of the First Amendment. Not to this Court, obviously, but in theory ...

 

It's a bad bill. It hasn't worked. It won't work. A Canadian-style system is simpler and, again, if you really want just about anything in life, you push hard enough to get your will to prevail. Dems just don't care as much as about as they claim to care.

 

John Marshall once said the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

 

I do agree that, for various reasons, we need a better Constitution.

Don't fetishize it.

 

You should start writing it.

 

Well above my pay grade.

I'm more interested in identifying problems than suggesting solutions.

Hey, maybe I should become a Republican!

 

My prediction is a 5-4 party-line vote to strike down the mandate. Then we're left with the GOP solution: If you can't afford health care, die.