The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Friedman by a vote of six to three. The majority opinion held, “When the legality of an economic law of national importance rests on an ambiguous clause of the Constitution, we will not substitute our opinion for those of the voters.”
The legality of the partnership mandate was thus rendered clear by the highest court in the land. The actual mechanics of enforcing the mandate proved to be more intractable, however. The Bureau of Partnership developed detailed methods to prove commitment to a relationship that satisfied the Adequate Partner Requirements. Affidavits were merely the first step. Receipts for joint meals, ticket stubs for nights at the movies, pictures of the couple together, or even transcripts of romantic conversations could be offered as evidence.
Patter, the former director of the Bureau of Partnership, quickly assured me, “No one had to submit any particular piece of documentary evidence. If they wanted their conversations kept private, a couple could send in a picture of them playing Pictionary, or a selfie of the two of them watching a sunset. The important point was that every person had to be contributing to the pool of acceptable partners.”
In practice, the mandate proved to be easily subverted. While attractive single people may not be a majority of the population, they are a discrete (and very popular) interest group. The most beautiful people in the country descended upon Washington to lobby for votes, forming coalition organizations such as Band Against Bad Economics (BABEs). Suddenly, elected representatives throughout Washington were spotted around the city with extremely attractive dates. Within days, the mandate fine was lowered from $5,000 per year to $100, dramatically undermining the usefulness of the