Agreed.I'm not aggravated. I just don't get why so many are doing over .4%.
It's idiotic at best.
Of course, its just as idiotic to blame Obama for high unemployment, or any other negative aspect of the economy.
Oh, you want me to crush you on the Constitution?
fine
A federal law requiring AUTO insurance would be unconstitutional.
Based on what grounds? You forgot to cite your case law in support.
Due to states rights, each state can pass a law requiring that we have it since driving is not a right but a privileged. Just like health care.
The ACA has nothing to do with rights or privileges, nor states rights, for that matter. The issue is whether Congress may regulate the healthcare industry per the Commerce Clause. A majority of courts have ruled it Constitutional:
Recognizing that uniform federal regulation is necessary in some instances, the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power [t]o regulate
commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has
broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. From 1937 to 1994 it did not
invalidate a single law as unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congresss
Commerce Power. The Court has explained that Congresss Commerce Clause power
encompasses three broad spheres: (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
(2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate
commerce; and (3) those activities having a substantial relation to interstate
commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Lopez,
514 U.S. at 558-59.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf
And because the IM doesnt violate the limits established in Lopez and Morrison, the ACA is clearly Constitutional.
Opposition to the ACA therefore has nothing to do with an individual mandate or concern for individual liberty, it has only to do with opposition to Obama.