tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post8096059193022895940..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Why the HHS Mandate Will StandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-89865095513148283712012-07-05T18:55:14.771-05:002012-07-05T18:55:14.771-05:00Yes, and those claims won't necessarily have a...Yes, and those claims won't necessarily have any merit because Roberts is saying a thing can both be and not be at the same time in the same manner.<br /><br />He can argue that the HHS Mandate should go forward because the government isn't restricting religious liberty, it's just requiring insurance companies do something. <br /><br />Insurance companies are not religious organizations.<br /><br />Now, the counter-claim is that many churches self-insure. But Roberts can just say, "Look, the mandate does not restrict religious expression. It just says that all insurance companies have to cover this, even if that insurance company happens to be a church."<br /><br />If the Constitution can require us to pay a tax simply for breathing, then certainly every insurance company can be compelled to follow the mandate, even if that insurance company is a church.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-85004604498984207672012-07-05T18:51:27.361-05:002012-07-05T18:51:27.361-05:00Actually, there can be a legitimate use of enumera...Actually, there can be a legitimate use of enumerated powers by Congress, that is exercised in a way that violates 1st Amendment rights. That is what the HHS Mandate filings are asserting. They do not question the power to regulate healthcare, they are asserting that it is done in a way that violates the 1st Amendment (among other procedural and statutory claims.) Trust me I have read the filings and claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com