Administration: Obamacare NOT a mandate because...

Obamacare: So well supported that 2000 companies have already been granted waivers exempting them from compliance with various provisions.

If you're an average working person, on the other hand, you vill purchase ze insurance or you vill pay ze fine to ze government.

Imposing such a "mandate" is widely considered unConstitutional. (Which in no way daunts Obama and liberals, who seem to have been laughing at the Constitution all along.)

But never fear: the administration's top legal minds have already anticipated these objections and have identified ways to overcome them. For example, there's an exemption to the mandatory health insurance in Obamacare for people who make less than a certain income. So according to liberals/Democrats/"progressives" the solution is simple:

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

See how simple that is, you stoopid wingnuts?

This isn't unconstitutional at all, because, see, it's not reallly a "mandate"! 'Cuz there's a way to get out of it.

Next up, liberals/Democrats/"progressives" plan to make anyone who wants to own a gun have a federal license costing $2,500 per gun. But it's not unconstitutional because it's not a ban on gun ownership, see? You can still own a gun. You just have to have a license. Just like you do for a car.

See how that works? NOT a ban on guns, because you could still own whatever you wanted. And of course no one is required to own one.

NOT a mandate, because you can always avoid it by earning less money. Same logic.

If that flies, next up will be for libs to require that every kid who turns 18 volunteer two years of service in Obama's brownshirt corps. And that won't be unconstitutional because...wait for it...anyone who wants to can avoid the mandatory volunteer stint simply by...dying.

See? Not a mandate at all.

Besides, why do you stoopid wingnuts get so worked up about this "Constitution" anyway? It's just a dumb piece of paper, written by a bunch of dead white property owners a long time ago. They didn't even have television or the internet then, so how could they know jack about what life would be like today? Huh? Huh?

Plus, when you've got a preznit as super-duper-mahvahlous as mmm mmmm mmmm Barack, who needs a Constitution anyway?

You people get so worked up over the most trivial things!

Besides, Van Jones says the Constitution is racist and only raaaacists would think we need it anymore.

So there.
======

Okay, out of character for a second: I think one of the things that makes me the most uneasy about the Solicitor-General's argument is that this son of a bitch may actually believe it's logically and legally sound.

Now, I'm not at all sure he does, as pushing a totally bullshit argument in the service of what one considers a "higher cause" is par for the course for some attorneys and politicians. But there's no question that he must think ordinary American voters are...well, terminally stupid to buy this crap. And he didn't seem to be reluctant to run it by the judges of the 6th Circuit, which suggests he didn't expect any of them to recognize it as crap.

Strange. And not entirely unexpected.