Some thoughts for Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that portion of Obamacare that requires citizens to purchase government mandated insurance from a private company, or pay a penalty.

Embedded in this discussion is basic contract law, so, I thought you might like to learn a piece of  “Contracts 101”. 

Under our law, each party must consent to both entering into a contract, and  the specific terms of that contract, or the contract is void or voidable. 

In the case of Obamacare, an individual is required to enter into a contract with an insurance company containing government mandated insurance coverage.  Whether that person wants to enter into that contract with an insurance company at all, or whether that person wants the specific things mandated  is irrelevant.  That person must, by law, sign the contract.

Is this the type of coercion that renders the insurance contract void or voidable?

Or, is basic contract law suspended because of Congress’ action?

We’ll learn the answer in a few months.


9 replies
  1. essneff
    essneff says:

    I’ll be interested in your answer to??that last question you posited after the testimony ends…… I appreciate how you simply this…… my opinion is that the law should be declared unconstitutional, but I fear that certain parts will stand?

  2. winnie
    winnie says:

    If this stands because of? Congress’ actions, I’d hate to think of the contracts the federal, state & local governments could then force us to sign under duress with the threat of a little fine here and a little fine there.? I think we’re taxed enough already.?
    Not feeling too confident that the supreme court won’t land on the side of the dems.

Comments are closed.