See: Rubio Seeks Obama's Support for Delay of Individual Mandate
"Sen. Marco Rubio is urging President Barack Obama to support his bill that would delay Obamacare’s individual mandate until six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally."
What I would like to ask Senator Rubio, a“conservative’, is: Under what provision of our Constitution is Congress authorized to impose a fine upon a citizen who exercises a fundamental right to purchase health insurance to meet their personal medical and health care needs and not “federally approved” health insurance?
Does the Senator from the great State of Florida disagree with what our Supreme Court has stated? That a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
And if Senator Rubio agrees with the Court, then why does he agree to allow the federal government to circumvent this fundamental right ”… six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally”?
JWK
"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
"Sen. Marco Rubio is urging President Barack Obama to support his bill that would delay Obamacare’s individual mandate until six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally."
What I would like to ask Senator Rubio, a“conservative’, is: Under what provision of our Constitution is Congress authorized to impose a fine upon a citizen who exercises a fundamental right to purchase health insurance to meet their personal medical and health care needs and not “federally approved” health insurance?
Does the Senator from the great State of Florida disagree with what our Supreme Court has stated? That a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
And if Senator Rubio agrees with the Court, then why does he agree to allow the federal government to circumvent this fundamental right ”… six months after the program’s malfunctioning website is working normally”?
JWK
"The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
Last edited: