"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."There are people (whose view of the world says it is OK to force people to engage in acts that they would not choose to do)
The act of engaging in commerce (or refraining from doing so) is foundationally one of Association. The government has no more authority to force an individual to purchase a product proffered by another, than it has to require couples to engage in pre-marital sex. Meaning, none. Because, obviously, refusing to engage in pre-marital sex affects the sex trade and the cost of same, right? And, eventually, everyone is a user of those services, right? And, we have an obligation to keep the cost of those services affordable to government, right? (Insert politician/prostitute joke here.)
Isn't this is the same government that lost money operating a brothel? And yet, they will save untold trillions by monopolizing the health care industry? Really? Go ahead...pull the other one.
Bravo Judge Vinson. Regardless what the academics and professors over on Volokh may say, the essence of your ruling is in accord with our Constitution.