At National Review, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute writes:
The weakest part of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion is his assertion that the individual mandate merely “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” To the contrary, earning income or buying a product is an activity that can constitutionally be subject to an “excise” tax. There is literally no constitutional or tax-law precedent for the notion that an individual can be subject to an excise tax merely for choosing not to buy a product.
Presidents and members of Congress take oaths to uphold the Constitution, and some of them take that oath seriously. Faithful to their oaths, a new Congress and a new president can repeal the individual mandate not only because it is bad policy, but also because they rightly consider it unconstitutional.
Read his whole post: What’s Next for the Opposition? – NRO Symposium – National Review Online.
Similar Posts:
- ObamaCare vs. the Hippocratic Oath
- Mandatory insurance is unconstitutional
- ObamaCare unconstitutional in ways New Deal is not
- Obama: Lifetime Secret Service protection for me, at your expense. We might grant you permission to own a gun.
