Idaho passes law promising legal challenge to individual mandate in ObamaCare

posted at 7:29 pm on March 17, 2010 by Allahpundit

Virginia passed a similar bill but this is the first to get the governor’s John Hancock. Commenters seem excited about it but I’m not sure why. Is it the federalist element, or the fact that people are now coming out of the woodwork to file lawsuits as ObamaCare nears passage, or something else?

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul…

“What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control,” Otter said.

It’s a nice gesture but basically pointless. You don’t need a state to get involved to challenge the individual mandate; every citizen will be required to buy insurance so every citizen will have standing to sue on their own. You too can take The One to court if you have the time and money. It’s not really a Tenth Amendment issue either. Grassroots conservatives like to imagine that as some sort of shield that can block implementation of O-Care at the state level, but that’s not how it works. By its own terms, the Amendment doesn’t apply to powers delegated to the federal government; the real legal question is whether the Commerce Clause empowers the feds to force people to buy insurance. If the Supreme Court decides that it doesn’t, then the mandate is unconstitutional and unenforceable. No need for the Tenth Amendment to get involved. As for the fact that 37 states have bills like this pending — which Idaho’s governor calls a constitutional “critical mass” — that’s super, but “pending” doesn’t mean likely to become law. And it surely doesn’t guarantee that a legislature which narrowly passes a similar bill would sign off on a federal constitutional amendment repealing ObamaCare (or, at least, the individual mandate). Not so critical a mass, in other words.

But still, a nice gesture, and useful as a data point in the news cycle about how unhappy some red and purple states are with this boondoggle. Vote wisely, Blue Dogs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

No, you are only required to purchase liability insurance (by the state, not the federal government), to protect the public. If you cause damage to someone else’s car, the state mandates that you have the financial wherewithal to repair the damage. The state has the power to do that, not the federal government, and it has nothing to do with efficiency or cost-spreading. It’s actually an attempt to put the cost on the responsible party, not spread the cost. It’s a false analogy.

mbs on March 17, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I see, so by that rationale anytime there is a risk of creating some damage in a public location, we should be forced to buy insurance? So, for instance, perhaps my son is riding his big wheel down the local sidewalk and damages a mailbox. Should he have been forced to buy big wheel insurance due to that potential for damage?

RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Presumably, health…or a human body. Presumably you have that.
The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

By virtue of simply being alive (and over 18, since minors, except for emancipated minors, cannot enter into binding contracts on their own), I must engage in this commerce? The “activity” in which I have chosen to engage is not to own a care but just to keep on living?

Comic gold.

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Heh, true. Even by contemporary standards though, Hamilton was pretty out there. He actually favored eliminating the states entirely and replacing them with newly-drawn administrative districts of equal population.

Hamilton also favored a federal “negative”—that is, investing Congress with the power to nullify state laws at will. Madison was on board with a federal negative, too.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Hamilton’s philosophical descendents are now running the EU.

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM

So a car is needed to mandate car insurance. What is needed to mandate health insurance? Presumably, health…or a human body. Presumably you have that.
The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Forgetting the state/federal issue (state car insurance mandate versus federal health insurance mandate), I can sell my car but I’m not allowed to sell my body.

You really suck at analogies. It’s not just you. That problem is rampant among legal types and our judiciary.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Hamilton’s philosophical descendents are now running the EU.

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Not at all. Hamilton was a dynamic thinker who saw our financial/economic future pretty clearly. The EU types are all staticists.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I meant to say only that I disagree. I didn’t mean to sound pissy about it.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:17 PM

You really suck at analogies. It’s not just you. That problem is rampant among legal types and our judiciary.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Haha … well said, sir. Well said.

RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 10:17 PM

This is the relevant text of the Idaho legislation:

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.

As I stated before, Allah et al, are wrong. Idaho will challenge the entirety of Obamacare on the grounds that it is beyond the federal government’s enumerated powers to enter the health care market in any form. This is about more than the mandate.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Forgetting the state/federal issue (state car insurance mandate versus federal health insurance mandate), I can sell my car but I’m not allowed to sell my body.

Depends in what context. People sell their sperm, eggs, blood etc.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
- Thomas Jefferson

MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:17 PM

If this kind of thing continues, we might just find that every citizen becomes a soldier. Oh, that pesky Second Amendment.

jimmy2shoes on March 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Right. But if you had a car, the law could force you to purchase car insurance, correct? Now what is the reasoning behind that? Efficiency and cost-spreading.

So a car is needed to mandate car insurance. What is needed to mandate health insurance? Presumably, health…or a human body. Presumably you have that.
The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Holy Gumby and Pokey, Batman!

I used to think you were just young and gullible, cur, but now I see that I was giving you way too much credit. You are flat-out blindingly stupid.

So, by your inimitable reckoning, if you have life, therefore you must have life insurance? Where, my doltish correspondent, does it end?

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

So a car is needed to mandate car insurance. What is needed to mandate health insurance? Presumably, health…or a human body. Presumably you have that.
The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

In PA, a car owner must not only have insurance, but must also bring the car in for inspection (annually, I believe).

No sticker, and you can get ticketed and fined.

What is the analogy there? How do we “inspect” people so they are not a “hazard” to others with their health? Banning trans fats or salt is one thing, but people still will eat too much and not the right thing, and don’t exercise.

What would be the analogy of comparing how the state requires one to fix problems from poor car maintenance to “fixing” the problems of poor health habits?

Mandatory exercise and physicals? Spot home refrigerator checks? Banning more harmful substances? tobacco? liquor? Oh, wait….

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Not at all. Hamilton was a dynamic thinker who saw our financial/economic future pretty clearly. The EU types are all staticists.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:15 PM

You’re a Hamilton fan? Yikes. He was too “statist”, even for me.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:22 PM

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Wrong. Insurance isn’t required to own a car, it’s required to drive that car on public roads. And car insurance isn’t required to protect you or your car but to protect someone you may hit and the bank’s interest should you be making payments on your car. The mere act of owning a car doesn’t obligate you to purchase insurance. And car insurance premiums vary widely based on state, sex of the driver, number of cars owned, the year, make and model, and a lot of other variables. Obama seeks one rate for all which is another form of wealth redistribution. The healthy will subsidize the unhealthy under the Democrats model.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM

So, by your inimitable reckoning, if you have life, therefore you must have life insurance? Where, my doltish correspondent, does it end?

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

No you missed crr6′s point. It’s not life insurance but health insurance. Life is optional.

Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 10:24 PM

No you missed crr6’s point. It’s not life insurance but health insurance. Life is optional.

Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Well, there ya go.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM

So a car is needed to mandate car insurance. What is needed to mandate health insurance? Presumably, health…or a human body. Presumably you have that.
The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Some are exempted from the mandate but they have to pass a Democrat religious test. Gee, I wonder how the courts are going to rule on that one.

Buddahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Depends in what context. People sell their sperm, eggs, blood etc.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Do you really want to push this?

So you would only be able to force me to buy insurance for those body parts I am allowed to sell. Is that what you want? I can’t sell my heart, so I don’t need to buy insurance to cover any heart problems – according to your odd analogy.

Cut your losses, curr. The car insurance mandate does not compare with the federal health insurance mandate. The federal government doesn’t have the power to control health care for individuals. It is for the state governments to deal with individuals for the social issues. Part of the reason for this is that social spending is without limit. You can spend as much as you want. It would take a total moron to put that sort of bottomless spending at the same level of government that controls the monetary system. States cannot create money and therefore cannot be dragged into expenditures for the social issues that can destroy the nation. The federal government, however, can easily rack up expenditures that place the entire nation at risk.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM

You’re a Hamilton fan? Yikes. He was too “statist”, even for me.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:22 PM

In some areas, yes. Areas that do require national policy.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM
I meant to say only that I disagree. I didn’t mean to sound pissy about it.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I should have explained myself a little more clearly. But federal pre-emption doesn’t lend itself to clarity. :)

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Cut your losses, curr. The car insurance mandate does not compare with the federal health insurance mandate. The federal government doesn’t have the power to control health care for individuals. It is for the state governments to deal with individuals for the social issues. Part of the reason for this is that social spending is without limit. You can spend as much as you want. It would take a total moron to put that sort of bottomless spending at the same level of government that controls the monetary system. States cannot create money and therefore cannot be dragged into expenditures for the social issues that can destroy the nation. The federal government, however, can easily rack up expenditures that place the entire nation at risk.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Just out of curiosity, what’s the financial state of the Massachusetts care program?

RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Depends in what context. People sell their sperm, eggs, blood etc.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM

You might want to check the Thirteenth Amendment, which is applicable to what can and cannot be sold.

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Naw, it’s more like…choosing not to purchase health insurance is effectively engaging in Commerce, because that choice effects Commerce. On an individual level, is that effect insubstantial? Sure. But that doesn’t mater (See:Wickard).

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM

According to that logic, refusing to wear socks, thereby not purchasing socks, is effectively engaging in commerce, because that choice affects commerce. Sock penalty? What the hell kind of convoluted freaking logic is this?

jimmy2shoes on March 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

“Efficiency and cost spreading” for any particular area of commerce is not the charge of the federal government. “Making regular” interstate commerce is not “efficiency and cost spreading” among individuals and private companies.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Wrong. Insurance isn’t required to own a car, it’s required to drive that car on public roads. And car insurance isn’t required to protect you or your car but to protect someone you may hit and the bank’s interest should you be making payments on your car. The mere act of owning a car doesn’t obligate you to purchase insurance. And car insurance premiums vary widely based on state, sex of the driver, number of cars owned, the year, make and model, and a lot of other variables. Obama seeks one rate for all which is another form of wealth redistribution. The healthy will subsidize the unhealthy under the Democrats model.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Maybe crr6 has never lived in the part of the country where people have several cars on their property, some on blocks, some not, some operable, some not, and all of them uninsured with no tags.

Own a big farm or ranch where you only drive an old truck around your property and stay off the county roads, and you don’t waste money on insurance or tags, either.

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Just out of curiosity, what’s the financial state of the Massachusetts care program?

RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I don’t know the specifics, but my understanding is that premiums are higher than average and the state is in serious trouble on the costs.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM

I don’t know the specifics, but my understanding is that premiums are higher than average and the state is in serious trouble on the costs.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Hmmm … gonna be great to see that on a national level.

RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

The reasoning behind this mandate is precisely the same as with car insurance. Efficiency and cost-spreading.

So you’re cool with redistribution. I’m glad we’ve got that on record for the next squirmy lie you attempt. Efficiency? Hah. Do I really need to go into the details of the monstrous inefficiency of anything federal?

You mock yourself every time you click on the “Submit Comment” button.

Keep it up, cur. I needed a good laugh after today’s illumination of our sorry state of affairs.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

It’s not really a Tenth Amendment issue either. Grassroots conservatives like to imagine that as some sort of shield that can block implementation of O-Care at the state level, but that’s not how it works.

All you need is a majority of judges to say that is how it works. And you don’t know if you will find a majority of judges unless you try.
One judge can make a difference in any opinion. One judge can change the meaning of everything. One judge more than the other side can rule ObamaCare as unconstitutional. One judge somewhere on a court in a 5-4 or 3-4 or 2-3 decision can stop tyranny in it’s tracks.
You never know what might stick against the walls when you start throwing. I’d rather see someone try something than to simply give up and give in.
Other than that, what are the options?

JellyToast on March 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Insurance doesn’t “spread” the costs, it creates a risk pool from which payouts can be made. Your payments are in direct relation to your risk.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Sock penalty? What the hell kind of convoluted freaking logic is this?

jimmy2shoes on March 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

It really depends on how hard it effects the economy. This is the real danger with the Commerce Clause.
I am an Ham operator. I talk to people from across this land and the next. I could have just picked up the phone and made a long distance call giving my money to Verizon, but I like the radio and chose not to participate in the high price phone service. Now if enough people do what I just did, the phone company would loose lots of revenue. Is that a crime? Why should the phone company by given rights to remain in business because I and others chose not to use their service? The reason – because others on this great land may not be able to operate a ham radio and they would loose their phone service.
So because I was being frugal with my money, I must suffer.

Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 10:47 PM

It’s not really a Tenth Amendment issue either. Grassroots conservatives like to imagine that as some sort of shield that can block implementation of O-Care at the state level, but that’s not how it works.

Really? That’s not what the Idaho legislation says:

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
- Thomas Jefferson

MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:17 PM
If this kind of thing continues, we might just find that every citizen becomes a soldier. Oh, that pesky Second Amendment.

jimmy2shoes on March 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Have you read this?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/03/is-michelle-bachman-advocating-civil-disobedience-in-response-to-obama-care.html

lovingmyUSA on March 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

We are not sheep.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

It’s not really a Tenth Amendment issue either. Grassroots conservatives like to imagine that as some sort of shield that can block implementation of O-Care at the state level, but that’s not how it works

Really? That’s not what the Idaho legislation says:

TATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.

Fixed it.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Insurance doesn’t “spread” the costs, it creates a risk pool from which payouts can be made. Your payments are in direct relation to your risk.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM

With all due deference, don’t tell me; tell crr6. I’ve not a problem with insurance, nor high-risk assessments… I do have a problem with redistribution, a la cur6 and her nonsense.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I couldn’t find his original.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Eeyorepundit rides again

Commenters seem excited about it but I’m not sure why.

Think about it; it will come to you.

It’s a nice gesture but basically pointless. You don’t need a state to get involved to challenge the individual mandate;

Right, 37 states or 37 individuals–what’s the difference? States taking back some of the power they’ve coughed up to the federal government over the last 60 years? Eeyore–look up federalism and then get back to us.

james23 on March 17, 2010 at 11:11 PM

I couldn’t find his(sic) original.

DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Not a problem. I get your point, but I can’t help myself when this infestation shows itself.

Predictable, yes. Original, not so much.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 11:14 PM

The Interstate Commerce clause justifying government forcing you to buy something is a pretty slim argument. A more justified argument would be the General Welfare Clause.

And the goal of the left as stated by individuals like Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel’s brother is eventually Socialized Medicine with its accompanying Tyrannies. I don’t see how anyone who holds Liberty in any regard would be buying this Healthcare Reform package which doesn’t solve the problems in the current system but infact makes it worse.

Holger on March 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM

. I don’t see how anyone who holds Liberty in any regard would be buying this Healthcare Reform package which doesn’t solve the problems in the current system but infact makes it worse.

Holger on March 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM

They. Don’t. Care.

They think we’re gonna lay down and they’re gonna get their socialist shit instituted, just like that.

They do know that if left unopposed, this monstrosity of a bill would necessarily lead to single-payer HC. That is their goal. They have said so, publicly, on tape.

They also know how hard that would be to undo once instituted.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 11:34 PM

There is another aspect that makes the car insurance/ownership analogy poor. The insurance is required for the car. Society also regulates the driver. You need a license to legally drive.

What kind of license you need to live? Do you turn up every five years and explain to them why you should continue to exist? Any particular test you have to pass? Eyesight still good?

The activity of driving is regulated in several ways. Don’t drive, and you don’t have to participate in any way. The Social Security card isn’t a good analogy to the license, by the way. Costs nothing, and you get it for life with no renewals.

How will we “licens the living?

Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM

There is another aspect that makes the car insurance/ownership analogy poor

lol, alright whatever man. You brought up car insurance originally, and I was just playing with the idea. No need to go crazy over it. It’s not some sort of foundational argument for health care reform.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 11:39 PM

For any feel-gooders reading this: Yes, it has come to this. Us against them. Them, They, Those Sons’a’bitches, it doesn’t matter.

Who started it?

I remember someone gloating: We won. After that, things just went to hell in a handbasket. I hope history will remember the truth.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 11:39 PM

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 11:34 PM

And Single Payer HC would eventually lead to as Holdren and Rahm’s brother want, Eugenics, Population Control measures, rationing based on worth to the ‘Collective’ and other restrictions on Liberty and Individual Rights. You cannot have this much power invested in anyone (no matter how holy their motives) without Tyranny being the result.

And AP says we can’t talk of the R and S words!

Holger on March 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Getting the Supremacy Clause wrong (or restating what I said)

DerKrieger on March 18, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Yes, but per the Supremacy Clause, a valid federal law will trump state law. So it’s back to a question of whether the Commerce Clause applies.

Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Prof. Randy Barnett, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown, has a useful, though lengthy and somewhat complex discussion of the issue.

His arguments go beyond discussing theoretical issues of the Commerce Clause, but examine actual cases decided by the Supreme Court.

His conclusion is that, for several reasons, the individual mandate is NOT constitutional and that SCOTUS would very likely rule that way.

JDPerren on March 18, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Holger on March 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Inevitable, if left unchecked. This monster is more easily slain in infancy.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Mandating health insurance would not be a problem if health insurance didn’t cost several hundred bucks a month even for the healthy.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM

As for the fact that 37 states have bills like this pending — which Idaho’s governor calls a constitutional “critical mass” — that’s super, but “pending” doesn’t mean likely to become law.

And how many States were considering legislation reaffirming the 10th last year? And the year before?

Considering that OK kicked the illegals out in 07 — sorry TX, seems most of them headed South to you. I’d say it’s a matter of time before we reach critical mass in saying enough is enough with encroaching federal powers while ignoring the responsibilities specifically assigned to the Fed.

Dare I say even by next November if OC passes soon? I can see several States having a referendum in Nov to push back. That ought to go down real well with donks on the ballot asking to be returned to DC.

AH_C on March 18, 2010 at 12:18 AM

This monster is more easily slain in infancy.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Actually I think it is impossible to kill the monster in its infancy because it seems so innocent. A Helping hand there, helping the poor there, alleviating poverty there. And people generally want good for others so they accept it.

But then, when monster has matured and its appetite widens, we understand that we got a monster in our midst and it is about to eat us. We can fight back, and we can kill it.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 12:25 AM

You don’t need a state to get involved to challenge the individual mandate; every citizen will be required to buy insurance so every citizen will have standing to sue on their own. You too can take The One to court if you have the time and money.

Yes, I can take Obambi to court, but why should I?

As crr6 so aptly put it, having the State sue on our behalf serves a two-fold purpose: efficiency and cost-spreading. We’d have our best lawyers to argue the case and spread the cost of doing so amongst the tax base. That is cheaper by a country mile than me forking over one thin dime to OC.

Unless you think justice would be better served by the Cloward-Piven strategy — thousands upon thousands of lawsuits to disrupt and bog down the system? I’d take the former over the CP strategy, thank you very much.

AH_C on March 18, 2010 at 12:28 AM

But then, when monster has matured and its appetite widens, we understand that we got a monster in our midst and it is about to eat us. We can fight back, and we can kill it.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 12:25 AM

All of the fingers and toes and teeth of the monster will be SEIU members who will fight to keep their paychecks because they will have no other skill than processing government forms. It’s going to be nearly impossible to kill it.

pedestrian on March 18, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 12:25 AM

I beg to differ. If this bad egg is left to hatch on its own, it will suck milk until the mother is dead. Think about it.

These entitlements never die of their own accord. Ever.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM

These entitlements never die of their own accord. Ever.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM

In other words, the abortion of this sclerotic flatulent farce of a bill is one abortion I will not oppose.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:13 AM

I beg to differ. If this bad egg is left to hatch on its own, it will suck milk until the mother is dead. Think about it.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM

It hatched under FDR and entered adolescence under LBJ.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM

It hatched under FDR and entered adolescence under LBJ.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM

I submit for your consideration that this is an entirely different animal, only with several resemblances to its bastardly creators.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM

The problem here is that in order to regulate commerce on me, I have to actually be active in that commerce. What the Senate bill is going to do is force me to participate in commerce that I may not want to get involved in.

Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 7:48 PM

No, you don’t have to be active in that commerce in order for the Commerce Clause to kick in.

As long as Congress has articulated a rationally related purpose for regulating the activity, the commerce clause will apply.

Conservative Samizdat on March 18, 2010 at 1:45 AM

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM

I will entertain your perspective if you will entertain the idea that it is the same animal only in different stages of development spanning about a century and a half, like a very nasty Plague of Locusts.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM

I will entertain your perspective if you will entertain the idea that it is the same animal only in different stages of development spanning about a century and a half, like a very nasty Plague of Locusts.

Holger on March 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM

Yes, this is the unnatural extension of unchecked stupidity combined with well-meaning socialism. It cannot lead to anything but misery and poverty for our nation and its citizens. The laws of mathematics and I-told-ya-so insist upon it.

We are embarking headlong down a dark, dark path, I fear. I pray that I am wrong and our elected representatives will actually this once represent us, we the freakin’ people, who chose them to do so (to represent us) in the first place.

I’m not getting my hopes up, though.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 1:58 AM

“…every citizen will be required to buy insurance so every citizen will have standing to sue on their own.”

Which, of course, leads to the Mother of all Class Action suits, eh?

{^_^}

herself on March 18, 2010 at 3:09 AM

I reject your reality and…

Is this what has become of us?

Maybe Jeremiah freakin’ Wright had a clue. Only not the clue he was so sure that the Jew-hatin’ God of Chicago clued him in on…or something.

Maybe Allahpundit is right; there is no God but Palomino..er un … Nancy.

hillbillyjim on March 18, 2010 at 3:16 AM

I live in Idaho and I happy as can be!

csdeven on March 18, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Forgetting the state/federal issue (state car insurance mandate versus federal health insurance mandate), I can sell my car but I’m not allowed to sell my body.

You really suck at analogies. It’s not just you. That problem is rampant among legal types and our judiciary.

neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:13 PM

You only need to buy insurance if you use your car on state owned roads. If you keep your car on private property, there is no need to buy insurance.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:51 AM

I’m not sure if these things have been addressed, so forgive me if they have. WARNING – boring legal discusssion to follow!!

A few disappointing clarifications:

First – the “good” news – In general, the U.S. Supreme Court has basically been consistent in finding that Federal Action is limited by the fact that is must fall within one of the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. AND
They have also been consistent in finding that the “General Welfare” clause does NOT provide a specifically enumerated Congressional power. (See Nowak, Rotunda, and Young, “Handbook on Constitutional Law” page 112 for a clear discusssion)

Now the “bad” news:

1. The Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in allowing the Federal government to regulate almost anything and everything under the specifically enumerated power of the “Commerce clause”. Therefore, there is no need to fall back to a “general welfare” argument, because the “Commerce clause” will allow almost any regulation.

2. The 10th Amendment has been essentially stripped of all meaning and power by Supreme Court decisions. Starting with: Carter vs Carter Coal Co. 298 US 238 (1936) and being further supported in: Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 469 US 528 (1985) – (which specifically over-ruled a line of cases that seemed to limit the power of Congress under the 10th Amendment and bascially left the 10th Amendment without any meaning whenever Congress was acting under the “Commerce clause”).

3. Finally, more bad news from the old decision of Justice Marshall in: McCulloch vs Maryland 17 US 316 (1819) – wherein the court actually changed the language of the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I, Section 8 of the constitution (which allows Congress to adopt all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out laws passed under the specifically enumerated powers). Justice Marshall decided that “necessary” didn’t really mean “necessary”, but rather it merely meant “rationally related”. Thus, so long as a law is “rationally related” to carrying out a law adopted under an enumerated power (like the commerce clause), then THAT law is also constitutional (and will preempt any State law that purports to restrict or limit its application).

Bottom line – IF Congress adopts a law like the healthcare reform law and it is found to be a legitimate exercise of their authority under the Commerce clause and then adopts a penalty for not buying the mandated insurance under the “necessary rationally related and proper clause” – then neither a 10th amendment challenge, nor a necessary and proper challenge will work to overturn it.

LAST GASP?? The Supreme Court has indicated that there is NO federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause if the subject matter of the law is one that is “traditionally left to the States” – in particular, they have ruled that the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily and historically a matter of local (State) concern. See: Hillsborough County, Florida vs. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. 471 US 707 (1985)

BUT – that case dealt with rules adopted by the State that imposed ADDITIONAL regulations beyond those adopted by the Federal Government and thus, the more lax rules did NOT pre-empt the more restrictive laws – so I am not sure that would be helpful in the context of this healthcare boondoggle.

/End Constitutional Lecture

Fatal on March 18, 2010 at 1:41 PM

“It’s a nice gesture but basically pointless.”

Haven’t had time to read the whole thread, so this may be a repeat, but you have got to be kidding!

The only place effective, sustained, push back against Washington expansion is going to come from is state governments. Individual suits are the pointless gestures — even if individuals did have the time and money to pursue them. The public won’t even see the mass of non-legislative regulations coming, or have any way to resist the mission creeping bureaucracy. Governors and State legislations deal with all of that day in and day out, and any suit they lodge is going to go straight to the top of the judicial ladder.

Would you really rather go to court yourself than have your Gov. head into the fray on your behalf? Do you really think you could do so more successfully? Are you really clueless?

JM Hanes on March 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3