, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the , writes:
The legal whizzes on the editorial board of the Denver Post have spoken: Today’s editorial reads:, the , is bad because Obama Care is constitutional.
[W]e believe [Obama Care] will survive legal challenges and will be found to be constitutional. The Constitution provides Congress authority to impose an individual mandate through the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.The Post says so, even though, “We’re sympathetic to the argument that an individual mandate is a curtailment of personal freedom or an infringement of states’ rights.”
Well . . . maybe not too sympathetic.
Because if they were more sympathetic, they might have noticed that the merits of Amendment 63 don’t depend at all on the constitutionality or non-constitutionality of Obama Care. Amendment 63 merely says that whatever the feds can or can’t do, Colorado state government isn’t going to join any jack-booted drive to crush our health care freedom.
Read his whole post: ConLaw 101 for the Post Editorial Board.
- Amendment 63′s Foes Only Want You for Your Body
- David Kopel: Why Obamacare mandate penalty can’t be a tax
- Amendment 63 protects your individual rights
- Jared Polis (D-Boulder) wrong about Constitution & mandatory health coverage