Vinson said the government even conceded that its interpretation of the Commerce Clause to support the individual mandate "breaks new legal ground" and is "unprecedented." He concluded, "If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party ... it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."
It would be a strain on credulity to suspect that the same man who cannot pronounce corpsman, is unaware of how many states there are in the Union, and believes that 'Cinco de Quattro' is the hispanic feast celebrated every 5th of May, would ever have heard of The East India Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment