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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Wrong again, O Proud One with the Protuberance.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Ever heard of sanctuary cities/states?
Buddahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM
I know this was probably a typo…but BOY did you ever hit the nail on the head describing our government now.
tickleddragon on March 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Yet won in a landslide. A Landslide I tell you.
YOu wouldn’t mind sharing your links would you?
uknowmorethanme on March 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM
I appreciate your condescension. To repeat my point: If the Supreme Court finds that Commerce Clause empowers the feds to compel the purchase of insurance, then by definition it’s a power that’s been delegated to the United States and therefore the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply. Passing this law does absolutely nothing to establish any “sovereign power”; all it does is authorize the state AG to sue the feds on Idaho’s behalf. If they lose the suit, that’s that.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:34 PM
If the Supreme Court finds that Commerce Clause empowers the feds to compel the purchase of insurance, then
by definition it’s a power that’s been delegated to the United States and therefore the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply. Passing this law does absolutely nothing to establish any “sovereign power”; all it does is authorize the state AG to sue the feds on Idaho’s behalf. If they lose the suit, that’s that.God help us all.hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM
Thanks, tickleddragon. It was intentional. I call it the “feral government” every so often, as it has broken with the domesticating constraints fo the Constitution.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 8:38 PM
C’mon, Allah, you’re just cheesed off because you didn’t come up with Potato Pushback!
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:40 PM
To practice a trade or operate a vehicle – no doubt all situations designed as a measure to protect the public. Not simply to be a citizen – a fundamental right. Having Health Insurance has no impact on the health and well being of others.
TheBigOldDog on March 17, 2010 at 8:41 PM
I don’t think doofpundit and other armchair legal scholars understand the ramifications of the SC interpreting the commerce clause to allow the fed to force individuals to buy a private thing. This will open the doors to insanity.
This has not been covered on the news at all. It’s far bigger of an issue than deem and pass.
TTheoLogan on March 17, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Allahpundit misses the point, as usual.
The Commerce Clause was deliberately written in to allow for Federal expansion.
Bring back the Articles of Confederation.
fossten on March 17, 2010 at 8:42 PM
I’m not arguing that the mandate should be constitutional, just saying that it’s essentially a Commerce Clause question. Idaho’s law does nothing more than direct the state attorney general to do what you or I could do ourselves.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Allai you are wrong. Preemption only applies to the federal government’s enumerated powers. Per the 10th Amendment, where the Constitution is silent the powers are reserved to the states and the people and the Constitution is silent on health care. Visit the 10th Amendment Center for more info. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM
I stand corrected on the “typo” thing. And a well-bent hat-tip to you on that lovely turn of phrse.
Well played.
tickleddragon on March 17, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Seriously, Man. You’re making a good point, but is it really necessary to call names? I mean, if the point is sound, the “poopy-face” name-calling only diminishes your standing.
tickleddragon on March 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM
What does the commerce clause NOT permit the government to do?
rickyricardo on March 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Yes, “doofpundit” is familiar with the Commerce Clause and how it’s expanded over the years, thanks. The Raich case is a sterling example. The point, since it seems I have to repeat it, is that Idaho’s law is utterly useless in affecting the scope of the Commerce Clause. All it does is tell the Idaho AG to file suit once the individual mandate becomes law. Then the Supreme Court will decide whether the Commerce Clause empowers the feds to force people to buy insurance.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM
You’ll have to admit that it will carry some more um… gravitas when thirty-some odd states follow suit.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:47 PM
The legal question at issue is whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do this. If the Court finds that it does (and there’s a complicated, boring legal test they apply to try to answer that question), then obviously the Constitution isn’t “silent.” It would be a matter of commerce.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:47 PM
It certainly would. But not all thirty-some states are going to pass it.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Allah, can you listen to Hugh Hewitt’s show? He had former Dean Eastman, current Republican candidate for California’s Attorney General and I think he disagrees with you. Besides, don’t you want these guys to at least give it a shot in the courts?
Cindy Munford on March 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Does anyone have a link to those 30 something states contemplating this? I hold out hope for my once great state – NC, but it’s slim, given our stupid governor runs to Washington nearly weekly to hold out her hands for taxpayer money.
Bev Perdue… a federal lapdog and prostitute.
tickleddragon on March 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM
And WOW…this is the most I’ve seen Allah talk in one thread before…
tickleddragon on March 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Either I am overestimating the good sense of the various state legislatures, or you are underestimating the backbone of the people out here in the hinterlands.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Meaning file suit? If so, they may be true, but what it does do is put the full weight and resources of a State behind it.
What if other States join? What if a majority join? Now the Feds have got a real problem that goes a lot deeper than gentlemanly legal briefs.
TheBigOldDog on March 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
I don’t think it is commerce, too, unless commerce can be involuntary. What the courts would do is another matter.
If you read the federal pre-emption cases, the majority of them do uphold pre-emption. The recent Wyeth v. Levine case from SCOTUS may be a trend away from it. In Wyeth, SCOTUS said a woman who was injured from a badly administered injectable drug could sue under state tort law (the drug manufacturer allegedly didn’t put sufficiently clear instructions for the tech or nurse doing the injection), and her case was not pre-empted by FDA regs and federal drug law. This caused quite a ripple in the tort bar, because the weight of precedent had been if the product was part of interstate commerce, the feds could pre-empt. And if there was anything the feds controlled in commerce, it certainly was the formulae for the manufacture of prescription drugs and the required warning labels to patients and doctors.
However, they cannot universally pre-empt, and it is admittedly questionable the individual mandate could be justified. Commerce cases involving federal pre-emption would presumably involve people enagaged in voluntary transactions.
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Of course. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to sue, just saying that you or I as capable as Idaho is of suing on this point. My argument, very simply, is that this isn’t a big deal since plenty of other people/states will be challenging the mandate in court too.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Actually, I wasn’t trying to be condescending in that post.
My point was that, if a federal court rules this, then the Constitution is void. It will have been stripped of all meaning. You can make whatever you want of that, but I am saying that some states might well decide that they are no longer bound by a contract that one of the parties has abused and broken. The fact that a state is looking to establish these laws of their sovereign rights indicates that these states might make that same assessment and act on it.
Okay. Call it whatever you want. I’ll call it a declaration of the state’s sovereign powers, but I don’t mind if you call it something else.
The state has its own judiciary, too. This law can set up a confrontation between the state and federal judiciaries, joined at the state level by other arms of state government. I have not yet looked at the actual Idaho law, so I can’t say how strong this protection is at the state level. But, forget the particulars of the Idaho case and look at the cases of other states that are doing much deeper changes in their state laws and looking to amend their Constitutions to combat the encroachment of the federal government.
This is very significant, AP, and will not fizzle away because of a court ruling or two. The federal government (including the federal judiciary) does not have carte blanche to do anything they want – even though they think so. This is a shot from the states warning them about that, and it is a stiff and strong warning.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
It used to happen quite often, before HA got all “big and stuff”… too little time, too much work, I imagine. Good times…
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:54 PM
True, but there’ll be plenty of citizens banding together to sue too and plenty of righty lawyers/think tanks/groups willing to foot the bill. Again — not saying Idaho shouldn’t have done this, just saying that it doesn’t advance the ball much.
Allahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 8:54 PM
No kidding, I love him even more.
BetseyRoss on March 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM
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
What Red State wouldn’t join in? If the people of MA can rise up and elect a Republican Senator who’s primary mandate was to stop Obamacare, anything is possible.
TheBigOldDog on March 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM
An attorney general might have standing that a private individual would not. The attorney general might be able to sue on behalf of all citizens in Idaho, while an individual would have to show how he would be individually affected by Obamacare. You can’t sue the government just because you don’t like how they spend tax money (imagine the flood of lawsuits you’d have if they did allow that.)
An individual who is uninsured, is not going to buy health insurance, fine or no, and who makes enough not to qualify for federal subsidies and says he’ll just pay cash for health care? Possible plaintiff there.
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Never in American history has the Commerce Clause been used to regulate someones in-activity by saying if one doesn’t participate in commerce, that you are harming interstate commerce, but this is what the individual mandate is implying.
This will be a overwhelming power grab by the Feds is the SC sees this as constitutional.
Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 9:00 PM
lol. Not all of us have your big bucks, Allah!
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:04 PM
No. It’s a question of whether the state accepts a perveted interpretation of the Commerce Clause – assuming the federal judiciary follows its history and rules that the Commerce Clause covers everything under the sun. I am saying that states that establish their powers over health care/insurance are giving indications that they might not accept a federal ruling that says that the federal government can do anything it wants and force any individual to buy anything, based on a twisted and strained interpretation of Commerce.
You seem to think that the federal government will have the final word and that is that, no matter how insane their decision, and everyone will have to just follow along. That just isn’t the case. These state laws are a warning that the federal government had better understand that.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 9:04 PM
I should probably take the fifth on this one.
FeralCat on March 17, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Dean Eastman did say that individuals should also file suit. He and Hugh mentioned financial and religious reasons not to buy insurance but he seemed to think that the individual could decided they just don’t want to make the purchase as reason enough.
Cindy Munford on March 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM
A state can assert that it is its power to regulate health care. An individual cannot.
pedestrian on March 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM
You really like the idea of 50 state currencies?
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Heh. You and I discussed it a while ago, when I first started doing it, though I was under a different name.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 9:11 PM
The Commerce Clause only applies to interstate commerce. Health insurance is not an interstate service. In fact, part of the complaint about the current system is that people cannot purchase their health insurance across state lines.
Besides SCOTUS has slapped down using the Commerce Clause as an umbrella for all lefty legislative wetdreams. See U.S. vs. Lopez.
shawk on March 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Well stated.
There is a line that “30-odd” states are warning the federal government not to cross, if they do cross it…
Well, I don’t want to be banned, so I won’t say it. But that’s what everyone is thinking, regardless.
Rebar on March 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Are the Amish exempt from Social Security? I thought they were.
I wonder if a Christian Scientist would be our ideal plaintiff to challenge Obamacare’s taxes? Maybe a fundamentalist who believes in faith healing?
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Your patience in explaining all that is admirable, but pointless.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Howdy from Caldwell Idaho !
o/t a bit , but the Idaho legislature is also considering taking a pay cut , now that , is something I can get behind! I hope it gets some legs to other stats.
shiftwalker on March 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM
states *sigh*
shiftwalker on March 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM
They mentioned Christian Scientists and since lorien1973 keeps telling everyone he is Amish, I think that exception is already written into the bill.
Cindy Munford on March 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM
It only applies by the most perverted interpenetration of it and those in power who would interpret it such are illegitimate.
An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.
- Thomas Jefferson
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
Bingo! it is the state’s responsibility to handle health care at the state level and decide how it is organized.
Yep. There is a serious issue of sec3ssion, though very few think it as close and as serious as I do. I don’t see any other way of saving the American creed, given the way this nation is going. If there is an individual mandate made federal law, then it is merely a matter of time – though I think the monetary catastrophe headed our way will do it, if nothing else.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM
By Valid federal law I am assuming you mean a Federal law concerning a matter that deals with powers explicitly enumerated as a Federal Power.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Whenever you find yourself on the side of crr6, it is time to pause and reflect.
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Careful now, don’t go getting yourself banned.
Rebar on March 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Here’s my understanding of the Commerce Clause in a nutshell. The Commerce Clause obviously gives the federal government the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court held early on that the Commerce Clause gave the federal government the power to regulate apparently local activity, because business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. But, in the ’30s, a lot of New Deal legislation got struck down as an attempt to regulate purely local commerce. Later cases in the ’60s seemed to expand the Commerce Clause, to allow regulation of purely local businesses that bought or sold goods to local customers, if the goods had previously crossed state lines. Back to that “current” of commerce. However, more recently, in 1995, the Court recognized limits on the Commerce Clause by striking down a federal statute which attempted to regulate firearms in local schools (Lopez v. US). The Court rejected the federal government’s argument that possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions in an “interstate” sort of way, and held Congress only has the power to regulate action that substantially affects interstate commerce. And again in 2000 (Morrison v. US), the Court limited the Commerce Clause, overturning the Violence Againt Women Act. Anyway, my point is that there are limits to the Commerce Clause, and I personally don’t see how it can be used to force someone to purchase something they would not purchase otherwise, to in effect, push someone into that “current” of interstate commerce, which they had no intention of entering on their own. Those who say that federal law invariably preempts state law are incorrect, and I feel strongly that the Commerce Clause, as interpreted by the Court, is not broad enough to allow the type of federal mandate to purchase insurance contemplated by the current reform bill. Course, I’m not a Supreme Court Justice.
mbs on March 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Yes. Which the health care bill would be, if it is found to be sustainable under the Commerce Clause. The power to regulate commerce is an explicitly enumerated federal power.
I still don’t think you know what standing means. By definition the individual mandate applies to every individual, so there would be an legally cognizable injury to each individual if it is an unconstitutional exercise of federal power.
Just because courts have laughed off all of your birther suits, doesn’t mean they never recognize standing or something.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Terrific.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Hahaha … I’m beginning to see that the “s” word is not authorized here at the venerable Hot Air site. I would hope that a thread on the civil war doesn’t open up as it would make the discussion quite difficult.
RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Not right now but if Obama keeps spending the like a flotilla of drunken sailors for much longer I reserve the right to change my mind.
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:28 PM
The state can claim a different injury, which is more to the point:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
They can say that a power reserved to them has been infringed upon.
The mandate is a losing issue, because it is simply a tax that applies to everyone, but which has various exemptions, such as if you happen to have qualifying health insurance.
pedestrian on March 17, 2010 at 9:30 PM
It is only ‘pointless’ if you think that states NOT cooperating in the federal scheme is ‘pointless’. Think sanctuary cities or the 55mph national speed limit. If the states will not play it does not matter what the feds pass.
JIMV on March 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Just got back from a trip up to Boise.
A beautiful and remarkably CLEAN city.
Quite a nice change for this jaded Angeleno.
The Ugly American on March 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Maybe Obama wants to be the second Lincoln? But this time I think Sherman would burn Washington D.C. to the ground, not Atlanta or Boise.
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM
The more and more I listen to you ‘Constitutional Law types’ like Obambi the more and more convinced I am that you guys do not read the Constitution in Law School, or private correspondences from the Founding Fathers or published articles such as the Federalist Papers.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM
If they found this, the mandate, to be within Congress ability to regulate commerce then Congress’ powers would truly be limitless. My statement was in regard to the entirety of Obamacare. The Constitution is silent on the federal government’s authority to set up a public option, and damn near all of Obamacare therefore the states have the power to disregard it as being an unconstitutional intrusion on state power. And yes I consider Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid and Social Security to all be unconstitutional as well. Just because the GOP has supported a popular measure does not make it legal.
DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Heck, it’s gonna be hard to have a discussion about the Akaka bill that is winding its way through congress. It’s all about the “s” word.
Buddahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 9:35 PM
State currencies are inevitable at this point. With 0bama monetizing the debt, America about to lose it’s AAA rating, and China no longer buying our debt – hyperinflation is a given.
Once the greenback is not worth the paper it’s printed on, the states will have to issue currency to keep their economies functioning.
Rebar on March 17, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Hahaha … touche.
RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 9:37 PM
The Founders themselves said that this is not blanket authority for Congress to do whatever the heck it wants. It’s high time the SCOTUS set limits on the definition of Commerce in keeping with the Founder’s definition. In their time ‘regulate’ meant to make regular and not anything like it means today.
DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 9:37 PM
The more, the merrier.
The Ugly American on March 17, 2010 at 9:38 PM
The power to regulate commerce has always been the power to regulate commerce that is voluntarily entered into. This is involuntary commerce.
I don’t have car insurance. The law can’t make me buy it with any fines. Why? I don’t own a car. Any activity with certain commercial obligations attached is a specific activity not entered into by the general adult populace.
By virtue of simply existing, I must enter into a particular contract upon penalty of a fine (or imprisonment, if I recall the Senate bill correctly)?
Once commerce exists, Congress may regulate it. Congress is trying to coercively create commerce.
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 9:39 PM
The mandate is just one minor unconstitutional part of this monstrosity. There is no enumerated power giving Congress the authority to provide health insurance, mandate minimum standards for health care plans, mandate insurers cover pre-existing conditions, mandate community rating etc. That’s price controls and it’s not allowed. Or does that fall under the Commerce Clause too? If so I guess Congress can set prices for ALL goods and services.
DerKrieger on March 17, 2010 at 9:44 PM
The state has also made it clear they will not provide any support in enforcing any such mandate…
JIMV on March 17, 2010 at 9:44 PM
I don’t think you know what liberty means.
Left Coast Right Mind on March 17, 2010 at 9:48 PM
I want to know how the hell Democrats can claim that the insterstate commerce clause gives them the Constitutional authority to regulate the industry at the same time they are PREVENTING ANY INTERSTATE COMMERCE!
And then I want to know why someone doesn’t sue on those grounds to have the ENTIRE bill ruled unconstitutional.
American Elephant on March 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Apparently, if it exists, Control Freak Obama and his Control Freak Gang of psychopaths and morons want to control it.
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM
You and I think alike.
Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 9:50 PM
No, we read all of that. But your reverence for the Federalist Papers is odd, considering they were written by the Founders who advocated a more robust and powerful federal government (especially Hamilton).
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
Interesting way to look at it.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every step you take
Obama wants to be controlling you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every night you stay
Obama wants to be controlling you
Oh, cant you see
He wants all to belong to the sheeple collective Obama we
To control all your life how his heart does ache
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every claim you stake
Every dollar you make
Every pill ou take
Obama wants to be controlling you
MB4 on March 17, 2010 at 9:53 PM
I’m not sure about 50 currencies, but it seems to me the best thing we could do right now is have one currency for the 50 states and another for Washington D.C. The latter, of course, would be worthless.
MrScribbler on March 17, 2010 at 9:54 PM
RELEASE
THE KRAKKENmy comment.hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Man, AP.
…..This is you with this post.
Hawkins1701 on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 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
Not the same thing (Wickard) and another thing that needs to be corrected in the SC.
Who the H*ll has the right to tell me that if I provide care for myself, that I am harming interstate commerce in that a doctor looses money because I didn’t contract him to provide service?
Just because a doctor decided to go into the business of providing care doesn’t guarantee that I have to be his costumer.
Electrongod on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
I want to set aside modern-day interpretations of the constitution for the time being. I am a strict constructionist. Does anyone on this site really believe that our founding fathers would deem this type of legislation constitutional?
RobbBond on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Lol, I guess that worked as a pretty good unintended poop joke, too.
Buddahpundit on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
I mentioned the Federalist Papers out of expediency, not out of any sort of reverence for the documents.
And I still maintain you guys do not read the Constitution as your interpretation of the Constitution is so wildly different than plain text meaning of the words, the Founding Father’s intent and the compromises they made to produce the document and have it ratified.
If you want to change the Document, go through the process proscribed under Article 5, not by lawyering language to support the cause of the month or trumpeting this Living Document nonsense.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 9:58 PM
What if I never go to the doctor?
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Yes, you’re right. And the WSJ had an essay in December about the constitutional problems of price controls, or at least controlling the rate increases.
There is a unanimous decision called Duquesne Light, in which SCOTUS basically said if you regulate a company out of business, it is an unconstitutional taking that violates due process. It was the 1987 court, but still a unanimous opinion is rare, so they were fairly clear on the issue.
And of course we know from the comments of Pelosi and gang that this is a first step and the goal is to drive the insurance companies out of business so that the government is the only one left to offere health insurance.
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Well, in comparison to the Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states to print their own money, and to charge import fees on goods brought across the state line from another state, perhaps a little more robust…
Wethal on March 17, 2010 at 10:00 PM
gotta go
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Eventually others will have to pick up the tab, even if it’s just the morgue hauling your dead body out of your house.
Fair enough. A lot of tea partiers quote them all the time though, which I find odd. Hamilton especially, wanted a much stronger federal govt. than really anyone would approve of today.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 10:04 PM
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
Hamilton was correct in those areas for which we have adopted a national policy, but we went with a federal government, as Madison did most of the larger-scale structure (based on Adams’ original Constitution).
The Federalist Papers, however, having been written for the specific purpose of explaining and selling the Constitution to the public, are an invaluable and singular resource for understanding the reasoning behind it.
neurosculptor on March 17, 2010 at 10:06 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
It is one thing for a state to mandate something and for the fed to mandate it. I do realize you love Big Brother .
CWforFreedom on March 17, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Well met, my friend. I’m gonna help support the Idaho economy in the best way I know — – that is to say I’m gonna be drinkin’ a shitpot full of
tater juicevodka every chance I get… the cheap, American kind of course.hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM
CRR pulled that out of his arse
CWforFreedom on March 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »