Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (27204)	1/3/2008 5:47:27 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217544

In USA, we have a strong tradition of federalism, which is to say, a two-tiered system, state governments and national government acting in very different roles with little overlap. The regulation of health, safety, and welfare are traditionally state functions. Thus, Massachusetts is arguably fulfilling its traditional role in regulating health, safety and welfare by imposing requirements on private persons to obtain health insurance. That said, this requirement is outside the norm. Nevertheless, historically Massachusetts has often been in the vanguard of social change (not always for the better). (Which is why the nickname "Taxachusetts"). Thre is a long standing tradition by the United States Supreme Court of deference to the individual states governing themselves as long as there is no conflict with the United States Constitution. It is considered beneficial to allow the various states to attempt to solve social problems by experimentation. Bottom line, if you don't like living in Taxachusetts, move to New Hampshire. So, yes, probably legal. Wisdom? Eh. I think not.