“A choice between two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is no choice at all.”

Regarding the Commerce Clause argument for ObamaCare.

There is a distinct difference between regulation of commerce and coercion of commerce.

In the 1992 New York v. United States decision the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot compel a State to enter into a contract. If they cannot compel a State how can they compel a citizen of that same State?

Swing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that to do so was:

“Congress has crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion.”

In the next paragraph she even cut to the matter of timeliness with this observation:

“We must initially reject respondents’ suggestion that, because the take-title provision will not take effect until January 1, 1996, petitioners’ challenge thereto is unripe. It takes many years to develop a new disposal site. All parties agree that New York must take action now in order to avoid the take-title provision’s consequences, and no party suggests that the State’s waste generators will have ceased producing waste by 1996. The issue is thus ripe for review.

How would an Unconstitutional forced subsidy of waste producers be any different that a forced subsidy to Insurance companies?

“Such a forced transfer, standing alone, would in principle be no different than a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments to radioactive waste producers.”

Considering the Federally imposed penalty/tax (depending on the forum that the Administration is arguing in front of) for not entering into this coerced contract Justice O’Connor also held

“In this provision, Congress has not held out the threat of exercising its spending power or its commerce power; it has instead held out the threat, should the States not regulate according to one federal instruction, of simply forcing the States to submit to another federal instruction. A choice between two unconstitutionally coercive regulatory techniques is no choice at all.”

So for those caught up in the nonsense that the Supreme Court should follow precedence here ya go.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=144