Originally Posted by frank ettin
No, the mandate is not open for discussion here, and Al Norris made that perfectly clear.
What may be discussed are the legal ramifications for Federalism and civil rights, including gun rights, of the Court's rulings on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, State Sovereignty and the power to Tax.
Frank, the Court's ruling on the commerce clause applies to the mandate and penalty/tax enforcing it.
Do you now see how that is not perfectly clear? If it were perfectly clear, I doubt that tyme would have discussed it above. I didn't ask the question to be offensive, but to clarify. Your explanation contains the same ambiguity.
In the prior thread, it was I who noted that discussing the decision didn't require discussion of general medical insurance public policy. Yet, the mandate and its enforcement mechanism is clearly a part of the decision.
Your courtesy in this has been greatly appreciated. I will be happy to abstain until this is resolved.