Second, if Congress doesn't and Scotus hears the case, it is but a short intellectual, Leftist walk for Scotus to build on Helvering v. Davis - 1937. Social Security was challenged and found Constitutional in large part based on the General Welfare clause, rejecting Madison and adopting Hamilton.
Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Cardozo held that Congress was given the power to spend money for the public good under the General Welfare Clause. Hence, the Social Security Act did not violate the 10th Amendment. The Court would defer to Congress in determining what legislative acts served the general welfare. Congress itself would be the monitor of what Congress would do.
I probably didn’t do a very good job of explaining things. Let me try again and see if I do a better job.
Your interpretation of the 7-2 decision is correct. That is because the Justice Department argued that it was a “tax” (which it was, of course) which they claimed found a place under the general welfare clause.
That said, there is NO precedent, nor any avenue in the Constitution for ordering citizens to purchase an insurance product (or any other product, for that matter!). An this is what the mandate before us is. In fact, the CBO has noted at least once in the past (Hillarycare) that such a law would not pass muster. Evidently, the courts have recognized in the past that forcing citizens to purchase something gives rise to citizens being PREVENTED from buying things as well.
Mark Levin’s handle is “ holdonnow “ Give him a yell or call his show.
He’s already laying the bricks for Landmark Legal Foundation to take a whack at this, should it pass.