Whether I agree or not, generally I can see some logic in Supreme Court decisions. In the decision on Obamacare, we are told the individual requirement to purchase health insurance is not covered by the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional. However, because there is a penalty (tax) for failure to comply with that which is unconstitutional, the requirement somehow becomes constitutional.
Both calling a penalty a tax, and a tax transforming an unconstitutional requirement appear to defy logic. The justices seem to be more concerned with looking for ways to uphold political aims than upholding the Constitution.
- Top scandals and controversies of each United...
- Robert Bennett: With public trust waning,...
- Top scandals and controversies of each US...
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation of...
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
- About Utah: Without fanfare, the National...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: How will...
- Letters: No welfare, ever 53
- Letters: Deception and government 31
- Letter: The real death panel:... 29
- In our opinion: Reduce the legal... 26
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation... 25
- Letters: Paycheck Fairness Act 20
- Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in... 20
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 18