In his premature declaration of victory, Ramesh Ponnuru avers that I have abandoned the defense of what he calls Chief Justice Roberts’ “functional” analysis of what is commonly called (but nowhere in the statute called) the “individual mandate.” To the contrary, I have argued that Roberts has not, as Ramesh seems to think, imposed a distorting external framework on his reading of the statute based on some “functional” preconception, but has fairly read the statute as containing, within own its terms, a mixture of functional taxing-power operations (do this behavior or pay this tax) and morally compulsory commands (meet this requirement or suffer this penalty).
Can two people declare victory in a friendly debate? I will buy Ramesh a drink next time we meet, if he springs for the second round.
(*I don’t want our readers to think I am departing for keeps.)
NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.