Rasmussen: 49% want states to sue to stop ObamaCare
posted at 11:36 am on March 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Remind me again how the success of passing ObamaCare is supposed to help Democrats in the midterms. Americans want tort reform, but ObamaCare has them so angry that they want states to sue to block it. Only 37% oppose the idea, according to Rasmussen:
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds that 37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. …
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor such lawsuits. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats are opposed. This suggests that filing a suit would be popular in Republican leaning and toss-up states but not in strong Democratic states. Of course, as with all things in the world of politics, these realities could shift over time as both parties try to spin the recently-passed legislation.
As many as 14 states already have plans in the works to do just that. They plan to attack the program at its weakest Constitutional point, the individual mandate, but will also look at other grounds. The undoing of the individual mandate would unravel the entire bill; without a way to force the young and healthy to buy comprehensive insurance they don’t need, premiums will skyrocket as must-insure regulations come into effect, and Democrats will reap a whirlwind of anger at the ballot box for the next several cycles.
Ironically, the only age demographic that doesn’t support suing to stop ObamaCare is the youngest, 18-29 year olds. Even 21% of Democrats favor such lawsuits, as well as 14% of liberals, who probably would like to see that effort transform the system to single-payer. Every income demographic supports the lawsuits by at least a plurality, although those pluralities are thin for <$20K (1 point) and $40-60K (3 points). A majority of men (53%) and plurality of women (45%) support the lawsuits.
And here’s another tidbit for Democrats to ponder heading into the midterms — 70% of likely voters consider themselves angry at the policies of the federal government completely controlled by their party, including 48% who are “very angry.” That comprises 67% of men, 73% of women, more than two-thirds in every age demographic, 73% of independents, and 50% of Democrats. Heckuva job, Barack!
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 »
There’s no rational basis for such a law, so a court would strike it down as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of legislative power.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Let the lawsuits commence: per PMSNBC:
I cannot wait, this is just the beginning of the suits.
theenforser on March 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Much like everyone having to buy insurance, unless you are amish, right?
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
I’m torn on this,
One the one hand I would love to see the mandate srticken. But, if that happens, it will be a push for the public option and given the Dems’ complete disregard of public opinion, they may just push it
angryed on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
So requiring everyone to pay union dues, whether they are members of any union or not, would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause because an individual activity, taken in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, where the revenue collected by the unions would be substantial?
Lets say 300M people, each pays $100/month. $1,200 * 300M = $360 Billion per year. That’s substantial, even in Obama’s mind.
Did I interpret your argument correctly?
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
as is Obama-Care
all Law is Arbitrary once you reject a Transcedent God as the source of Law and Rights.
jp on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Congresswoman Caroline Cheeks Kilpatrick (former Detroit mayor’s mom) may be next up on the docket. She will be facing grand jury questioning.
evie on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
CRR name 2 or 3 popular liberal initiatives that would be unconstitutional under the welfare clause and tell me why.
CWforFreedom on March 23, 2010 at 12:27 PM
So economic inactivity by an individual falls under “regulation of interstate commerce”? Forcing them to make a purchase is not regulation, it’s a mandate to buy. This whole line is beyond a stretch.
As for the Feds coercing behavior through the tax code, I don’t like it, and it’s one reason I don’t like “tax credits” being presented as tax cuts, but it does happen. However, it’s the usually the threat of removing a benefit that does the coercion, not the threat of applying a new punitive tax on an individual to force them to buy something.
If your arguments prevail, there’s really nothing that can’t be dictated and directed by the Federal Government – even mundane personal decisions that may or may not be remotely related to “commerce”.
It would lead to conditions that are exactly what the framers were looking to prevent.
forest on March 23, 2010 at 12:27 PM
In general, it is best not to feed the trolls.
highhopes on March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
An e-mail I just received;
“Let me get this straight. The new health care plan will be written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress which hasn’t read it, signed by a President who smokes, funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke..”
Star20 on March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
You stepped in it now.
Please provide a rational basis for the 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
The net effect of ObummerCare is increased unemployment. How does that help the dems in Novenber?
bloviator on March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
That’s the idea to them.
Your freedoms are ones granted to by government. IE – what they haven’t, yet, decided to take away from you.
That’s what socialism is.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Thanks…yeah, that all makes sense, but of course, the bill doesn’t.
lorien…Was it during Clinton’s presidency that tariffs were raised on imported autos, in an effort to get people to buy American cars? Granted, that’s not a mandate, but it is a government “nudge” to do what they want you to do.
JetBoy on March 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM
They don’t care. They got their baby and damn those without jobs.
CWforFreedom on March 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM
No, a court would find that there’s a rational basis for the exemptions here (the people exempted are poor, etc.). I was actually a bit wrong with my initial analysis, the other law would be discriminatory on its face (cause it mentions race) so it would be subject to strict scrutiny. The government would have to show the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. I doubt the government could meet that burden.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM
That would piss off the Chinese, who Obama needs to fund his fantasy.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM
As humorous as ‘converting to Amish’ sounds, I suspect that a ‘convert’ of this nature living outside of PA would probably be visited by a newly hired IRS agent with a chip on their shoulder, looking to jack you up in a big way.
Midas on March 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Washington? Really? I would expect our attorney general to be in it to try and force a more explicit public option.
WitchDoctor on March 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM
If thirty some-odd states want to sue, we’re in the ball park to call for an Article V Con Con. Not sure it can be done without opening Pandora’s box, but maybe an amendment to forever bar socialized medicine could be acocmpanied by a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.
I can dream, right?
Firefly_76 on March 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM
I’d say a lot of that depends on the reaction to Obamacare over the next few months and the mid-term elections. Keep in mind many of these idiots really thought that they’d be patted on the head and rewarded for voting Obamacare into existence. Yesterday they hunkered down and were trying to figure out why people were angry at them. The filthy lying dictator even had to announce an education tour to lecture the public on what a good deal they are getting with socialized medicine.
BTW, it’s a good rule of thumb that the legislation reeks if the President has to schedule education tours to take the heat off of those who voted for it.
highhopes on March 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM
The Commerce Clause applies to economic activity….the question becomes whether it applies to economic INACTIVITY too.
In 1994, the CBO stated that mandating people buy insurance would be “unprecedented”.
I wouldn’t bet money on either side of this court battle.
evie on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
LOL. I stepped in it? Do you think I made up the rational basis standard?
Under the rational basis standard, the state merely has to show the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It’s a very deferential standard, so as long as the state could show some sort of rational basis for the law the court would uphold it.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Quick question for the lawyers: if the states succeed in stopping the individual mandate by having the courts declaring it unconstitutional, does that mean that the whole bill is unconstitutional and is repealed or just the mandate?
ujorge on March 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Dollars to donuts the newly hired IRS thugs are former ACORN employees.
highhopes on March 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
We all note well that you didn’t answer the question.
Midas on March 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM
If that happens, just toss a couple of puppies onto a bonfire as the agent looks on. That should be all the proof you need to prove your “Amish” heritage and ideology.
[Google it...don't watch the videos]
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM
O’Connor cited US vs. Lopez in her dissent in Raich. Scalia tried to differentiate Lopez from Raich in his concurrence . Do the Libs think that they can rely on Scalia, Alito and Roberts to concur with them that this national-individual dictate does not erase boundaries between local and national ? or that somehow this dictate will make intrastate commerce more effective ? that should be interesting.
runner on March 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Just parts. As we saw in McCain-Feingold, some aspects were deemed unconstitutional but others were not. The whole law doesn’t get scrapped for tainted parts. However, the ideal situation would be the mandate is so gutted that it makes implimentation of the rest problematic.
highhopes on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I wouldn’t fret on that. By the time this winds its way up to SCOTUS we’ll be well past the 2010 elections and probably up to 2012.
Firefly_76 on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Not the point. Can congress make you do this?
Trade/tariffs are part of the powers of DC. There’s a huge difference between a tariff and making you buy an american car.
I see how it works now. It’s capricious, unless it’s not.
I’m curious what other federal laws people are exempt from, purely on economic status. Care to share?
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I submit that the 10% tanning tax is Un-Constitutional because it unfairly places a monetary burden on a specific segment of society. It is discriminatory based on race.
Why? White people use tanning machines in disproportionate numbers compared to non-whites. It is essentiall a “white tax”.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM
I don’t know enough about the law and why it was enacted to answer if there is a rational basis for it. What’s the legislative history? It’s your hypo, you provide the facts.
A court would probably uphold it though, as I said rational basis is a very deferential standard.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Freedom, Liberty, Self Determination and Free Will . . . Sorry, not available in Obamaland.
rplat on March 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Bet the tanning bed tax, makes more tanners buy their own bed on the used market.
jp on March 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM
As soon as the current health control bill kills the insurance companies and the whole idea of “insurance”, we’ll go single-payer. Your monthly health control tax will truly be a “Your Stupid Selfish Mother Let You Live and you Haven’t Died Yet” tax.
The concept of equal treatment under the law died long ago in America. Henceforth, protected classes will be accorded special deals.
The age of the politically connected interest group is upon us. I suggest to everyone: Marry someone of a protected class or preferred group. Join a union. Get a government job.
Your example is silly, of course, because Caucasians could never be exempt. They have done irreparable damage to Mother Gaia and are not human. /s
ROCnPhilly on March 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Related satire: Historians Discover Lost Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (click image to enlarge) http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/historians-discover-lost-letter-from.html
Mervis Winter on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
That’s begging the question. By assuming this a Constitutional tax, then you conclude that, obviously, taxes like this are Constitutional.
BlueCollarAstronaut on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
People are exempt from all sorts of taxes because of their economic status. The income tax for example, is progressive, so you pay less the less you make. You’re exempt from higher taxes based on your income status. This is all novel to lorien, apparently.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Wow that was a great impression of liberal logic. Love it.
CWforFreedom on March 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM
The line-item veto exists only in the Supreme Court. The effect of nullifying a part of a law can be the collapse of the entire law…such as the way it’s funded or by declaring it the right of the states to decide, who could then individually opt-out.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
You’re arguing this under Yick Wo then? (a facially neutral law that is discriminatory in its application?)
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
The problem is that even in the aggregate, people not purchasing health insurance does not affect interstate commerce. With marijuana, consumption in one state would likely lead to its production in another. Health insurances are not sold across state-lines. Pharmaceutical products and medical devices do cross state-lines, and people from one state might use occasionally make use of services in another state, but it’s untenable in my opinion to argue that the existence or absence of the mandate would substantially affect either. People take medication and visit the doctor when they are sick, not just because they happen to have insurance. The situation is quite different from the legal status of marijuana, which can be presumed to be an effective lever controlling its level of consumption.
year_of_the_dingo on March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Next on the horizon-communal tanning beds.
CWforFreedom on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM
You have to file. The point isn’t in the rates. I know you are dodging, but you are not exempt from taxation based upon economic status. You get exemptions and stuff, but that’s wholly different.
Your argument is, you have to have a drivers license, unless you are poor. Then you don’t.
You have to insure your car, unless your poor, then you don’t have to. This is your argument.
This is the point. You continue to be purposefully obtuse.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Everyone is equal in the Democrats’ eyes unless you are successful (you suck!) or in a union (we love you!)
search4truth on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Its not hypothetical. It became law today, around 1100 am.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM
For all I know you could have extracted it from one of your trailing orifices . . at any rate we’ll wait for credible lawyers and scholars of the law to make this determination./
rplat on March 23, 2010 at 12:47 PM
All will be forced to use the sun for tanning purposes. The horror.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Is it you assertion that the Legislative intent of the founding fathers was to leave gapping holes in the restraints on the government?
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Biden (during the signing ceremony) tells President “this is a big f____ing deal…..” You bet it is!!!!!
mobydutch on March 23, 2010 at 12:47 PM
FYI: here’s a link to the text of the complaint filed today:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/healthcare.pdf
theenforser on March 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM
This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM
LOL.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Rush is AnninCA’ing AWESOME. He is on a roll about love and the lack of it by demrats.
OmahaConservative on March 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Unless you are poor or amish.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
I’m sorry… where are individuals in that list? I only see nations, states and tribes. Those are government organizations, not individuals.
And taxation is only authorized for the paying of Constitutional debts. In your reply, you linked the taxation clause with the generic “General Welfare” clause. But this is not a correct interpretation. The “General Welfare” that you cite is an abstract explanation as to WHY taxation is authorized. The Constitutional actions that fall under “General Welfare” are defined in the clauses following Article I Section 8 Clause 1. My assertion is accurate historically…
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” –James Madison (considered the “father” of our Constitution)
Since individual mandates for health coverage are not described in the Constitution, it falls under the 10th Amendment:
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.
Interesting that individual “people” ARE mentioned here…
Check and mate.
dominigan on March 23, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Sadly, an argument like that could be made owing to “disparate impact” — that is IF white people were a protected class.
Firefly_76 on March 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM
He’ll fall back to the shameful Wickard decision.
Which, under threat of FDR’s court stuffing idea, pushed the court to greatly expand federal powers.
And if you read Wickard and its implications; it really is the perfect example of every liberal scheme ever developed. IE the power of DC is unlimited, if you bend the original intent and enumerated powers enough.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
…besides, I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how bankrupting our country with trillions in debt is good for our “General Welfare”.
Sounds more like the strategy of a “domestic enemy”…
dominigan on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Slightly OT but as long as we are talking about what states can do, why don’t they talk about calling a Constitutional Convention? Any polling out there on that?
txmomof6 on March 23, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Takes 3/4 of the states, right?
lorien1973 on March 23, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Given the immigration reform we’re about to experience, white people will no longer be the majority, and therefore will qualify as a protected class.
Happy days are ahead. Unintended consequences and all that.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Don’t paint all Baby Boomers with the same brush. I make Rush Limbaugh look liberal. Still, you have a point. I’m actually with Ann Coulter, who thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote (and I’m a woman, too.) The number of female airheads out there in voting land makes me cringe.
hachiban on March 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM
You missed an epic struggle last night on a different thread which discussed this very issue.
It was..uh..lively.
Bishop on March 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM
You can continue quoting SC cases all you want to justify the Individual Mandate via the Commerce Clause but there is one theme in all of these cases; one parties action caused some economic or possible economic harm on the other party.
Your marijuana argument is a case where one person chose to participate in producing goods that might effect interstate commerce. What about his neighbor? Is he subject to this law even though he never liked marijuana?
Again the Wickard vs. Filburn case was ones action of producing more wheat for himself then he was allowed possibly effecting interstate commerce. Did his neighbor who hates wheat an never grew it also mandated to buy wheat just because in some unforeseeable future he might like wheat?
Electrongod on March 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Hopefully you didn’t include me in that slosh of paint.
Back to the tanning tax: Do you think it deserves a review under the equal protection clause (disparate impact), or does it “smell” like it lacks a rational basis?
I understand you may not be versed in the law; after all, its only 3 hours old. But just a shot from the hip…what do you think?
If you ask me, this tanning tax sounds an awful lot like the Tea Tax of 1773. And we all know how that ended up.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM
+++1!
OmahaConservative on March 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM
I disagree. I tell all my wives how to vote. Don’t take that away from me.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Again, I’d need more information, honestly. But “from the hip” I’d say it’d almost certainly past constitutional muster.
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 1:14 PM
That was my point as well – Far-left National Socialist moonbats in the Democrat party would have us believe that the founding fathers would have written a document that tightly controls the government and yet would leave huge Loopholes that would let them do whatever they wanted.
It doesn’t make any logical sense.
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM
For any liberal that is exulting the passage of the individual mandate, you can have some fun pointing out that…
They have just established precedent for individual taxation mandates. So WHEN conservatives take over Congress and the Presidency, we can now pass laws MANDATING that INDIVIDUALS contribute to a conservative political “exchange”… and if they don’t, it means big tax fines. After all, eliminating
the Democratic partyProgressives is good for the “General Welfare” of our country! Oh… and for good measure… I can also cite the Commerce clause since current political donations can cross state lines.Isn’t it fun using liberal logic? They can’t argue against it without undermining the legality of the Healthcare Obamanation itself.
This is an example of Madison’s comment in action. When Congress is allowed to deviate from a strict interpretation of the Constitution and ad-hoc decide what is in the General Welfare of the country… anything goes… and runs completely counter to the intent of the Constitution.
dominigan on March 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Crr, you might have missed this one:
So requiring everyone to pay union dues, whether they are members of any union or not, would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause because an individual activity, taken in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, where the revenue collected by the unions would be substantial?
Lets say 300M people, each pays $100/month. $1,200 * 300M = $360 Billion per year. That’s substantial, even in Obama’s mind.
Did I interpret your argument correctly?
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Oh… and no, I don’t agree with what I suggested. I was just providing an analogy to show how idiotic this law is.
dominigan on March 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM
The societal compact between us and the government now has been torn from top to bottom. An unjust and unwanted law has been signed that will not pass Constitutional review.
ted c on March 23, 2010 at 1:20 PM
In the twisted logic that now prevails in this country, I’m convinced a savvy legislator could use the general welfare clause to nullify the entire Constitution on the grounds that it would be for the good of the country, or in Obama’s words..”the right thing to do”.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Can someone please tell me where I can find the actual text of this healthcare bill on-line? I need it to counter friends and family who tell me that this bill is not so bad. Our local newspaper published “their” list of the important things in the the bill this morning, and there is nothing negative in it! Their version of the bill is just peachy, and makes it look like those of us complaining are crazy. My own mother who is a card carrying Republican read it and said “oh, well, talk radio and Fox and the internet are just telling us the bad things. There are good things in it too, we need to hear both sides”. Arggggggh!!!
Susanboo on March 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM
My guess is that crr6 won’t answer this type of question, because she has no answer.
As Typical with a Far-left National Socialist moonbat troll she will either flee the thread or wait and to see if we leave.
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM
To anyone:
Children cannot be pre-existed on any policy due to this new law. So here’s the issue that is going to end up with lawsuits:
A 26 year old man who should have been pre-existed for say, a heart condition gets a lawyer. The lawyer states that since the person could not be pre-existed because Obamacare since 2010, they should not be pre-existed in 2012, even though it’s clear that it was a pre-existing condition. However, since the bill became law, the man actually has an argument against being pre-existed since he would have not been pre-existed as a child, why should he be pre-existed as an “adult”?
mjk on March 23, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Shocked that the number is below 50%.
That will change…
People generally have no idea how bad this bill is. It’s misery will reach nearly everyone. Even those few people that eat at or work for, or would now be willing to work for, restaurants.
Restaurants will now be insuring their employees. Or paying a fine. And having all of their food checked for nutritional value so they they print it on the menu.
The obvious result will be more expensive food, less restaurants & a lot less restaurant jobs.
So if you’ve become desperate enough to brush up on your ass-kissing skills to make some tips to pay the bills give it up now and learn to enjoy being broke and hungry.
Dorvillian on March 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Yeah – particularly the Commerce Clause. It needed to be there to prevent States from brawling with each other over trade. The Federal Government is to act as an arbitrator and set some basic ground rules for trade. It’s beyond a stretch to argue that that allows the Federal Government to force individuals to buy something – even if it’s done by abusing the tax code – instead of using the criminal code.
forest on March 23, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Since it is now OK to tax Non-Union members 40% of their insurance policies (large family policies > $12k), in the future it will now be OK to tax Union Members 350% of their insurance policies.
barnone on March 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM
A poster that also believes in strict interpretation, where have you been?
The States’ rights issue appears to lead to a dead end. If the individual mandate is the weakest Constitutional point, would it not be better to have individuals file the lawsuits, instead of the States?
We were all young and healthy once (some posting here are still). Mandating that a healthy individual must buy insurance to offset the costs of those that are unhealthy creates an undue burden on the healthy individual to the benefit of the unhealthy individual. Would this argument not carry more weight in the courts than the States’ rights argument?
rukiddingme on March 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM
“Sins of the father”.
Laws are not retro-active. You cannot sue for a previous event when no law existed to be violated. My defense for such an action is simple…
I was in compliance with the law at the time.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Hoorah!! Cuccinelli’s complaint against Obamacare as filed in the District Court.
Firefly_76 on March 23, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Yes, as I asked crr6 earlier:
I would like to see how they can argue that on the one hand the Founding Fathers set things out to restrain the power of the government over the individual and on there other unleash the government with a couple of vaguely worded clauses.
The Far-left National Socialist moonbat trolls would rather befuddle with Bull Stupak with long winded postings that distract from the central issue.
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 1:46 PM
I wonder how many of these people have not caught on to the fact that mandatory means them too.
Terrye on March 23, 2010 at 1:49 PM
It should. The will also be aware of the number of states who will be filing lawsuits. While that fact should have no bearing in their deliberations, they will be aware of this in-escapable fact:
~37 states are contemplating suing the Federal Government, most likely in a losing effort.
But….
Only 33 are needed to call for a Constitutional Convention. Add one more state, and we have enough to ratify an amendment. And Reid, Pelosi, and Obama can’t do a damn thing about it.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Really??? I like Jon….he’s a good man. Go Nebraska!!!!
yoda on March 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Well, he hasn’t formally announced this, of course, but I’d say it’s his nomination if the gov. doesn’t run.
NebCon on March 23, 2010 at 1:54 PM
That’s what I figured the response would be. Unfortunately, we’ve lost cases assuming that. So the answer is: we would end up paying for anything that would ordinarily be considered pre-existing. And that’s how we will lose a metric crapload of money and end up going out of business.
mjk on March 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Our Governor would be great, but I would back Jon too.
Are you joining us in Omaha for the Tea Party on 4/1?
yoda on March 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Agreed. Thanks for the response.
Btw, I am no longer young, but knock on wood, still healthy. ;-)
rukiddingme on March 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM
It is H.R. 3590
I hope you like a little light reading… 2700+ pages.
barnone on March 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Just read it….
He’s going for the whole ball of wax, and an injunction to boot!
Go Virginia!
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Cuccinelli.
Must be something in the water.
BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Is it you assertion that the Legislative intent of the founding fathers was to leave gapping holes in the restraints on the government?
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM
When the Supreme Court sides with the Democrats, the states should push for this.
from my blog
When the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was enacted the states lost their sovereignty. Other than repealing the 17th Amendment there does not seem to be any way to enforce the constitution’s protections of states rights. What would it take to bring back the concept of states rights when the Supreme Court of the United States of America no longer sees the constitution as a constraint to the federal government? I think that a constitutional amendment that gives states the right to remove Supreme Court Justice’s would be the answer to this quandary. It would work similar to a call for a constitutional convention in that it would take 2/3 of the states to vote for the removal. The president gets to appoint the Supreme Court Justices, the Senate gets to check those appointments, and the states get to decide if those justices are indeed protecting their interest in the contract that we call the Constitution of the United States of America. This should restore some balance of power in our government.
astonerii on March 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »