As I said above, I don't want to start a flame war; you're welcome to challenge or disagree with anything I say. However, I do have a response:EagleMan wrote:Most constitutional professors, even most conservative ones, agreed that Obamacare had solid constitutional backing, whether or not they liked it on its merits. The fact it came so close is rather ridiculous.
Also Clarence is still a bit of a scumbag for not recusing himself from the case despite the fact that his wife is actively involved in an organization that wishes to repeal the ACA.
I don't much like Obamacare, given how much of a conservative idea it is, but it's a step in the right direction and better than nothing.
I don't know what you mean by "most" constitutional professors, but apparently these professors know more than the Supreme Court because 7 of the 9 judges said that it violated the Commerce Clause--which should have meant that the government cannot "penalize" someone for not buying something they may not want or need. The Commerce Clause was one of the founding arguments in favor of Obamacare by the constitutional lawyers that fought for it. Furthermore, the Court declared that the Federal government cannot force the states to expand Medicare (another one of the tenants of this bill). The provision in the bill that tried to do this basically said that if a state did not want to expand Medicare it would not receive any money for Medicare at all. That violates the Enumerated Powers clause.
Also, throughout the debates and discussions over the law, they all denied that the Mandate was a tax. Vehemently said, no, this is not a tax. The Supreme Court upheld the Mandate as constitutional because it was a tax (which falls under the government's legal ability to tax), and basically said "you can say it's not a tax all you want, but it IS a tax." This was apparently evident by how the law was written, but unfortunately I haven't seen the actual text of the law, so I will have to read that before I completely understand what it is they meant.
As for this being a Conservative idea... if that were the case, the Conservatives would have come up with it, not the Liberals. And Liberals in congress would have been opposed to it for that very reason. Also it strongly violates many of the Conservative ideologies, including limited Federal government, so I'm not sure exactly where you see this as a "Conservative idea." Not to mention that this bill means that we, the Middle Class, will be seeing approximately twenty-two new taxes added on to our income.
I'm not sure if you see taxation the same way that I do, but isn't all tax just money that someone forces you to pay under threat of violence? How else would they enforce a law but with violence?