Unconstitutional (2)

Today's NY Times has solicited opinions from a handful of legal scholars on the (un)constituionality of the health insurance reform law.

The view most favorable to the law's constitutionality--and the view that to me seems the least tortured--is that the "mandate" is nothing more than a new tax, a tax from which those who purchase private health insurance are exempt.

It does, however, seem entirely conceivable that the current Supreme Court will not see things this way. Let Roberts et al overturn the bill, I say. Sic semper tyranis! Let freedom ring, and all that. I should be free to die prematurely of untreated chronic disease because my employer can't afford group health insurance, shouldn't I? It would be the quintecence of tyranny for the government to force me to purchase health cover, wouldn't it? I mean, holy habeus corpus, Batman, they might as well just throw me in jail!