I find Mitt Romney‘s argument on why his mandate is okay, and the ACA’s mandate is unconstitutional really incoherent (via Dave Weigel):
The ruling supports Mitt Romney’s view that Obamacare is an unconstitutional power grab by Washington. We should repeal the law and return to the states the power to determine their own health care solutions.
I mean if taxing people who don’t buy health insurance is tyranny when the federal government does it, why is it any less tyrannical when a state government does it? Either way, the government is “forcing” you to buy health insurance. Is government tyranny just perfectly acceptable if it comes from a state government? What kind of sense does that make?
I understand that the Constitution gives the states a lot of leeway, but this distinction seems to dodge the question of first principles. If it is inherently unjust for the government to “force” you to buy something, why hasn’t some freedom-loving conservative filed a 14th Amendment challenge to the Massachusetts mandate alleging that the state government is depriving them of their liberty by forcing them to buy health insurance? Obviously consistency isn’t the issue.
