Authored by: YurtGuppy on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
I think your post is just fine except for the
mention of mandatory auto insurance.
That is a faulty analogy.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
but the reasoning to get there is rather strange as others have noted. Roberts
mentioned the "duck" defense. Looks like, talks like, walks like, etc
therefore it IS despite the specific wording of mandate. Only when the penalty
kicks in is there a tax linkage. It is flimsy. He himself said there must be an
extraordinary effort to rule something passed by congress to be unconsitutional.
It is a stretch, imo.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
1) You are not required to buy auto insurance UNLESS you choose to drive.
2) More importantly, the FEDERAL gevernment does not require you to have auto
insurance. This requirement is imposed by the states. The states have plenary
police power to do this. By the constitution the federal government is limited
to it's enumerated powers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|