|Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT|
|The statement was made that, “in the legal field you have to think about all the|
issues from both sides”. I believe that, in the legal field, it is also
appropriate to consider the impact of any fundamental principles established by
a decision in a larger context.
That said; this decision is not really about health insurance...
The decision basically holds that it is not constitutional for the government to
force you to buy a particular product but that it is constitutional for the
government to tax you for not buying the product which the government cannot
constitutionally order you to buy. I believe that the logic used to reach this
decision is seriously flawed.
Beyond the context of health care, the larger concern is a government armed with
the ability to tax its citizens for not buying products simply because the
government thinks that the purchase would be a good idea.
Energy conservation, like healthcare, is an area of national concern. The
government could now constitutionally mandate that everyone purchase an electric
car or pay a tax. Any purchase that the government deems worthy could now be
constitutionally mandated using this twisted logic.
A Pandora’s Box has been opened...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]