decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
People affected by the individual mandate | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
People affected by the individual mandate
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )