Are you with me?...
Now the court said that as a "Tax" it would be constitutional.
The bill however "AS WRITTEN" implies mandate, not tax. President Obama on numerous occasions has said it's "NOT A TAX"
So What I am asking is, UNTIL the President admits its a tax and not a mandate, and the bill is re-written to imply this, Why can't states refuse to comply on the grounds that the Supreme Court deems that a mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and therefore the CURRENT BILL AS WRITTEN is unconstitutional?
Now I'm not a lawyer...Does this make any sense?
Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.