But Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in saying the mandate overstepped the Constitution.I'm not sure I understand. He's saying that the mandate is unconstitutional either because it is an "atypical" application of Congressional authority (sorry, I missed the part in the Constitution that defines "typical" applications of Congressional authority and forbids Congress to go beyond it), or because it has significant policy implicatioins and "political undercurrents." Oh. Because the Constitution says nothing Congress does may be political.
"This case, however, turns on atypical and uncharted applications of constitutional law interwoven with subtle political undercurrents," Hudson wrote. "The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications. And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."
But let me help you, judge. The power for Congress to impose a mandate arises both from the commerce clause, which gives Congress unlimited power to control interstate commerce (given all insurance companies are "interstate" and people with or without insurance are free to travel across state lines) and from Congress' power to tax. Congress is essentially affording a tax credit to those who have insurance (or applying an extra tax on those who do not). I respectfully submit to you Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;I'm pretty sure judges are supposed to read this thing...
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;