JWeinCom said:
You are aware that the states are also subject to the constitution, right? A great deal of supreme court cases involve people sueing the state. Edit: I'm not going to quibble over the examples. I'm sure I could have looked up some supreme court cases to find better ones. The point is that it is indeed perfectly constitutional for the government to compel people to do things, and that it is explicitly constitutional to tax people for the general welfare of the population. |
No offense, but you are pretty ignorant in state vs federal. The guy you quoted is completely right. There is NO FEDERAL LAW on drinking age, seat belts, or speed limit. They were heavy handedly placed as requirements to receive federal road funding (so no the interstate commerce clause didn't apply).
Also, the national guard belongs to the governor and not the federal government. If a governor refused to commit his troops, there is no legal ramification. Again, they simply lose federal funding.
Following that precedent the ACA would be constitutional if they tied the requirement up to funding and let the states suffer if they didn't fall in line.
