I think they will rule it constitutional.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think they will rule it constitutional.

If they do then they've opened a can of worms in allowing the government to expand on what it can regulate under the commerce clause. If they can force you to buy health insurance or face a tax penalty they can force you to buy a new car yearly, or a new house, or an apartment, or go out and see whatever new movie is playing at the local theater, and you won't be able to do **** about it, all because the government claims they're regulating commerce. And if you don't like that idea then you'd better get on your knees and start praying to Santa Maria that the Supreme Court isn't willing to be quite so radical.

It seems I was correct.

Now for anyone who thinks this is some radical new encroachment of government, please answer the following question:

In practice or even in theory, what difference is there between forcing people to buy something; and taxing everyone to pay for something you give away for free, and then granting tax breaks for certain people/situations?

Better question: Under the newfound authority to tax economic inactivity the government has been blessed with, how long will it take for you to ***** and moan about being told you have to buy a new car every year because it's good for the economy?

Originally Posted by Tabbi

Better question: Under the newfound authority to tax economic inactivity the government has been blessed with, how long will it take for you to ***** and moan about being told you have to buy a new car every year because it's good for the economy?

There is no new found authority, the federal government always had the power to levy taxes.