I'd like to hear Lynn's case on the unconstitutionality of both the ACA and Social Security.
Whadya say Lynn, can you make an argument that isn't simply asserting an opinion?
For instance, I can reason that the individual mandate is constitutional, because if you could frame the "penalty" imposed by not buying insurance differently, it would then pass muster if you framed it as a "tax deduction for insurance costs" that are simply not available to you as a deduction if you don't buy insurance. But it is still functionally, mathematically equivalent, and if you can make it constitutional just by renaming terms, do we REALLY have a constitutional argument against it?
So, is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to offer a tax break to folks purchasing health insurance? Are tax breaks unconstitutional upon themselves?
After all, when the penalty was called a "tax", the courts gave it the go ahead. Simply by renaming it from "penalty" to a "tax."