Quote:
Originally Posted by beej
From what I've heard and read (and I'm no attorney by any stretch) there was a way of reading the act as constitutional and a way of reading it as unconstitutional. Apparently the Court has a history in such cases of opting for the constitutional reading. Perhaps that is simply what Roberts was doing when he viewed the penalty as a tax and therefore within the reach of Congressional power.
|
I think this is a set up. I think Robert's is strengthening states rights over federal mandates knowing that individual states will ignore federal guidelines in many areas in favor of tradition conservative politicians.
This will only serve to further increase the divide between the moderate democrats and the fat belt states.
Also as a tax this program can be repealed with a simple 50 votes which is likely to happen if Romney wins.