The ink is barely dry, and fourteen states, including my adopted home state of Pennsylvania (commonwealth, actually), have joined together to file suit challenging the constitutionality of the just-enacted health care 'reform' law.
I realize that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn the law, but wouldn't it be wonderful vindication for Justice Alito to write the majority opinion?
A guy can dream, can't he?
From what I see, the AGs will challenge the law based on the fact that it will require people to purchase health insurnce policies. How is that different than a state requiring motorist to purchase auto insurance?
ReplyDeleteDriving is privilege, whereas health care is now a right, and purchase of which is now a requirement of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteSecond time I have seen someone using the auto insurance analogy. The federal government does not require auto insurance, so where is this connection? Dumb analogy if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteGG - I'm guessing the requirement to buy a gun for our 2nd amendment right is just around the corner. Actually, they'd probably, and rightfully start with the first amendment. Probably will make having a wife a requirement for free (and unlimited) speech.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "free speach" part of Amendment un/one will be watered down to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms version. Or, whatever passes for free speach in dhimmi-land...er I mean Your-up Pee-an Union.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI don't support Obamacare, but please tell me how to address the auto insurance/health insurance analogy when I am challenged with it.