An Important Pledge of Consistency For Both Sides of the Individual Mandate Debate

Many opponents of the individual mandate have argued that if the individual mandate is upheld, there will be no limits whatsoever on federal power. Many proponents of the individual mandate have responded that there are several significant limits on federal power even if the mandate is upheld.

I propose that those who have voiced either position must now take a pledge of consistency. Here’s how it will work. If you have argued that upholding the mandate would means that there would be no limits on federal power, you should pledge now that if the mandate is upheld, you will not argue that there are any limits on federal power under the decision upholding the mandate. On the other hand, if you have argued that there are several significant limits on federal power that are entirely consistent with upholding the mandate, you should pledge now that if the mandate is upheld, you will never question or argue against any of those limits on federal power.

Deal?

UPDATE: I have fiddled with the post a bit to make clear that the pledge for mandate opponents is about interpreting a decision upholding the mandate, not about whether that decision is right or wrong.