Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
Of course those states that are attempting to nullify the federal law with their own legislation will experience a sudden, violent collision with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and that will be the end of that.
So, all that's left is individuals who don't want to buy insurance: basically the free loaders. I guess I don't feel much sympathy for them.
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
I think the question is more about the reconciliation bill.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
If it were to be found unconstitutional (and I can't imagine how) it would mean that just about every other similar bill would be found so as well, throwing our entire system of government into upheaval.
I still haven't heard a real argument as to why this bill, among all, is unconstitutional. Many opponents just seem to think that since they don't like it, it must be.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari]Certiorari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse
Somehow Case law can make supporting arguments either for or against, but should it get to the SCOTUS, case law does not fully explain this same situation. The variable with the SCOTUS is still the politics behind it - and that there are multiple states challenging this and maybe coordinating their efforts, this may provide better arguments rather than a single perspective of just the commerce clause challenge.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
If they find only the part mandating participation in the government plan which is what it is, the bill will become unfunded. Think that may increase the deficit?! They sure won't back down.