Arguments that the requirement to buy insurance or pay a tax in the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional are not very convincing. But apparently we’re going to see some that are much, much worse. Here’s learned constitutional scholar Saxby Chambliss trying on another ad hoc rationale for size:
“There are such significant issues that the court could very well declare the bill unconstitutional,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).
Chambliss highlighted several provisions the court could strike down, such as a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax and federal payments that are more generous to certain states.
The idea that a program that provides more benefits to one state than another is unconstitutional is certainly…innovative. I somehow suspect that this is a line of argument that Republican legislators, especially those in the ex-apartheid states, are not going to want to pursue for very long, although perhaps Chambliss can start by getting Georgia to pay back its allegedly illegal surplus.
So how does Chambliss justify voting for so much allegedly unconstitutional legislation?
“We do things from time to time that favor one state or congressional district over another, but this is different because it’s such a massive legislation,” Chambliss said.
Oh. Well, I’m convinced!